Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Italian Workers, Kenya

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War what rates of pay have been agreed for the principal categories of Italian skilled workers at present employed on contracts in Kenya; and what rates are paid to Africans for comparable work.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the rates of pay for Italian skilled workers employed by the War Department in Kenya. As regards the second part of the Question, no skilled African tradesmen are available for the work to be done by the Italians.

Following is the table:

Annual rates of pay for Italian skilled workmen employed by the War Department in Kenya.

Group I Supervisory—£345–£370*.
Group II Highly specialised—£320–£344*.
Group III Specialised—£295–£319*.
Group IV Semi-skilled—£270–£294*.
*Plus free food and accommodation.

African Regiments

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the Nigerian Regiment and the East African Regiment, respectively; and whether these two regiments form part of a divisional or other composite force.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the second regiment mentioned, the noble Lord is presumably thinking of the King's African Rifles. It is not the practice to disclose the strength or composition of particular units or formations.

Earl Winterton: Is it not possible, without doing anything to disaccord with security, to give some indication of the size of the very important forces in Africa, in view of the fact that it was always done before the war, and even up to 1939?

Mr. Shinwell: I should not think so at present.

Promotion (Recommendation Form)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has approved the form used by officers of the Royal Engineers attached to the Second British Infantry Division in which they have to state whether men under their command, whom they are recommending for promotion, are married to women of alien origin, and if they have, or have not, applied to marry an ex-enemy national.

Mr. Shinwell: This was a form approved locally for use by one particular unit. The item referred to in the Question is being removed from the form.

Mr. Collins: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask is he aware that in the case of which I have sent him particulars the fact that a British sergeant was married to an ex-enemy national was allowed to interfere with his promotion, and will he look into this case and any other cases?

Mr. Shinwell: I am informed that no man in this unit has been refused promotion on the ground of having married an alien.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a copy of the document in question has been sent to him and this question as to whether or not the man is married to an enemy alien is included in the form? For what object is it included but to weigh against the man's recommendation for promotion?

Mr. Shinwell: There may have been some other reason.

National Service Men (Training)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that after the period of initial training the schedule of training and duties for National Service personnel is sufficient to keep them reasonably busy, and that the present scale of recreational and educational facilities is adequate.

Mr. Shinwell: The training and duties to be carried out by National Service men should keep them fully occupied; adequate facilities exist for education and for recreation during leisure hours.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many instances of young men in National Service who feel they are not fully occupied and are subject to a great feeling of frustration? Will he look into this to see whether these facilities can be improved?

Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. Friend can give me some details of any man not getting enough to do, I will certainly try to find him sufficient to do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Captain Liddell Hart recently expressed the view that the Army is too large, and will he take this into consideration and advise the Government accordingly?

Mr. Shinwell: The gentleman referred to is not original, because my hon. Friend has held those views for many years.

Tanks, Haifa (Loss)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the loss of two Churchill tanks in Haifa on 29th June.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on Tuesday last.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Tuesday he expressly reserved the question of the conduct of the two sentries there, and since then an allegation has been made that they were suborned and deserted? In these circumstances, will he not do all he can to clear up the position as quickly as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: I have made very careful inquiries about where they are, but so far I cannot get any information.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Has the usual court of inquiry into the loss of or damage to equipment been held and, if so, what was the result?

Mr. Shinwell: If there are inquiries, and I have a report, I shall know a little more about it.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman find out whether there is any truth in the statement, which has been widely made, that these two tanks and their drivers now form part of the Israelite Army?

Mr. Shinwell: It is alleged that they were taken into possession by members of the Israelite Army, but I have no other information.

Training Area, North York Moors

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now abandoned his proposal to acquire additional land and retain part of the present training area in the proposed North York Moors National Park.

Mr. Shinwell: This proposal has not been abandoned. It was the subject of a public local inquiry on 14th April, 1948, the report of which is under consideration. In the circumstances I do not think that it would be desirable for me to say anything further at this stage.

Mr. Sharp: When will my right hon. Friend be able to announce his abandonment of this proposal? As a result of his lunchtime conversation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, has my right hon. Friend been persuaded that it is about time he got out of this area?

Mr. Shinwell: There is considerable fluidity about this problem, and it has not been liquidated as a result of the lunch.

Mr. Turton: Without committing the Minister to the main proposal, may I ask him whether he has considered the alternative area proposed by the Standing Committee of the North Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say that I have specifically considered the suggested alternative, but I would remind the hon.


Gentleman that the question of the acquisition of land for battle training is very complex and intricate.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he was able to bring his influence to bear on the Secretary of State for War? Can I have an answer?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not.

Mr. Stokes: Am I not entitled, Mr. Speaker, to have a simple answer to a simple question?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is not correct to ask one Minister to influence another, because the Government is one and indivisible.

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) is part of the one and indivisible.

Requisitioned House, Othmarschen

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War why Frau Martha Wolff or her gardener have been prevented from working the garden of the requisitioned house Klein-Flottbeckerweg 37, Othmarschen, whereas a B.A.O.R. ordinance expressly allows the owner of a requisitioned house to work the garden, provided the occupant receives part of the produce.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any ordinance such as is suggested in the Question. The house referred to is occupied by an officer who cultivates the whole of the garden himself. This is in accordance with the normal requisitioning procedure.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until January or February of this year this house was occupied, and that the family were allowed to have the garden? Since there has been a change of occupant this woman has been chased off it. Will he acquaint himself with C.C.G. instructions, which are different from Army instructions, and which lay down that the owner may cultivate the garden and that the occupier may get some of the produce?

Mr. Shinwell: This woman has three other gardens in Hamburg from which she obtains produce.

Mr. Stokes: I was not aware of that.

Courts Martial, Bad Nenndorf

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the courts martial in connection with the death of two Germans at Bad Nenndorf Civil Interrogation Centre and the maltreatment of others have yet been completed; and with what result.

Mr. Shinwell: Two courts martial have been held to date. The first was on an interrogation officer of the camp who was acquitted on all charges. The second was on the medical officer of the camp. He was charged with manslaughter, but was acquitted on this charge. He was, however, convicted on several charges of negligence under Section 40 of the Army Act, and was sentenced to be dismissed. The finding and sentence have, however, not yet been confirmed. A third court martial, on the commandant of the camp, is still in progress.

Mr. Stokes: When the court martial on the commandant has been completed, will my right hon. Friend see that a comprehensive public statement is made about this deplorable affair?

Mr. Shinwell: If I am asked a Question when that happens, I will answer it.

Major-General Vulliamy (U.S.A. Visit)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the purpose of the visit to the U.S.A. of Major-General C. H. H. Vulliamy, Director of Signals at the War Office.

Mr. Shinwell: The Director of Signals is visiting the United States of America at the invitation of the United States Department of the Army. It is intended that he should visit American signal units and establishments, with a view to gaining first-hand knowledge of the organisation, operations and procedures of the Corps of Signals, United States Army.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House a review now of the outcome of the adventures of this procession of high-ranking officers who have gone to America, and to which I have drawn his attention in the past?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot imagine that it can do either the United States or the United Kingdom any harm to have these visits.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it not quite unusual, Mr. Speaker, for hon. Members of this House to criticise, or otherwise comment on the executive functions which officers of the Services carry out?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that it is unusual, but perhaps these constant criticisms do not carry much weight.

Mr. Platts-Mills: On a point of Order. Do I understand from what you have just said, Sir, that it is assumed that there was some criticism involved in my Question? Upon my word, none was intended. If you have the feeling that every Question I ask about an officer of this sort is meant to be a criticism of that officer then, with the utmost respect, I suggest that your view is quite unfounded.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may think that, but he must be aware that in all these Questions there is some kind of innuendo which, after all, is not right. Imputations and innuendoes are not in Order in asking supplementary questions, and, therefore, I made the remark that I did.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the Minister aware that at one time I was one of Major-General Vulliamy's most efficient deputies, and that I am in a position to know that this distinguished and experienced officer can do more good in six weeks in the United States, in matters of technical research, contacts and friendly liaison with America, than the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) could do in six years?

Mr. Shinwell: I would not dare to quarrel with the hon. and gallant Member's appraisement either of himself or Major-General Vulliamy.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Have any similar invitations been received by British officers from Moscow?

Mr. Shinwell: If a Question is put down on that point, I will try to answer it.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not rather strange that a Socialist Government should be sending so many of its military representatives to America to get instruction from the most ruthless capitalist Government which the world has ever seen?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not equally strange that a Socialist Government in

Britain should be practically dependent on the capitalist Government of America to keep going from day to day?

Mr. Speaker: After this, I think we had better get on.

Broome Park Hotel (Circular)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a circular, issued by the proprietors of the Broome Park Hotel, near Canterbury, contains a statement derogatory to the Army, in that it charges members of it with wilful damage and theft; and if he proposes to prosecute the proprietors of the hotel and compel them to withdraw the circular.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a copy of the passage in the circular to which he refers. The offensive statement derogatory to the Army is in general terms, and contains no allegations against particular individuals. I need do no more than point out that if it had not been for the gallant fight put up by the Army and the other Services in the war to defend this country from invasion, the proprietors of the hotel would doubtless not now have been in possession of it at all.

Court Martial Procedure (Committee's Report)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War if the Committee of Inquiry set up by him under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Lewis to inquire into the court martial system has yet reported; and if he will publish the report and take steps to implement it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War when the report of the Court Martial Committee will be published.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the findings of the Lewis Committee on Court Martial Reform will be made public in the near future.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. A. Allen) on 20th April last. I can see no prospect of the report being made available to hon. Members this Session.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend see whether one of the recommendations in that report is that some system of appeal from courts martial should be set up? Such appeals are desirable in the public interest. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to implement such a recommendation if there be one?

Mr. Shinwell: When the recommendations are examined, I shall see how far it is possible to reconcile them with what my hon. and learned Friend has suggested.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the Minister has had the report in his possession since 20th April, what is the reason for the delay in publication?

Mr. Shinwell: This is a very complex matter; it affects several Service Departments and also the Legal Department under the Crown. The matter has to be very carefully examined. If it were a simple matter, I should be able to make a simple statement.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is there any reason why hon. Members should not be able to examine the report while the consequences of the report are examined by the War Office?

Mr. Shinwell: There is every reason why hon. Members should defer consideration at any rate until the Departments concerned have been able to conduct a further examination.

Mr. Low: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to implement the report before the House sees it, or is he going to delay its implementation?

Mr. Shinwell: I will not seek to do that. Hon. Members will be entitled to a full statement on the matter, but adequate time must be given to us to examine the problem ourselves.

Colchester Barracks

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War when Cambridge, Connaught and Victoria blocks in Colchester barracks were last used for the accommodation of soldiers' families; to what use these blocks are at present respectively being put; and what is the intention of his Department with regard to the future use of these blocks.

Mr. Shinwell: These blocks in Colchester barracks were last used for the accommodation of soldiers' families in 1939, when they were condemned as unfit for married quarters. Cambridge block is now unused and derelict. Connaught block is now used for a dental centre and for administrative offices. Victoria block is not inhabited but is used for training in fire fighting. It has not yet been settled what is to be done with these blocks ultimately.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister look into the possibility of these blocks being reconditioned?

Mr. Shinwell: I have given a great deal of attention to this matter of accommodation for serving men and officers, but some of the blocks in our possession are not worth reconditioning.

Port Operating Units

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many officers and men of Port Operating Section, Royal Engineers, were employed in the recent dock strike;
(2) how many officers and men of Port Operating Units stationed in England were employed in the recent dock strike.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not the practice to give information of the kind asked for in these Questions.

Mr. Langford-Holt: While respecting the right hon. Gentleman's desire to maintain security, may I ask is it not a fact that these units were not in any way employed during the recent strike, and would it not have been an ideal opportunity for testing their efficiency, which is the sole purpose of their existence?

Mr. Shinwell: We have not any doubt about their efficiency, but it is undesirable to give the numbers of men operating in a particular area.

Personal Case

Mr. McFarlane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet come to a decision in the case of Mr. A. E. Jenner, of 421, Gallowgate, Glasgow, which has been before him since 5th March last.

Mr. Shinwell: A decision cannot yet be given in this case as further inquiries


still have to be made. Those made so far have not substantiated Mr. Jenner's claim.

Civil Servant (Disciplinary Action)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which disciplinary action has been or is proposed to be taken against a civil servant, Mr. F. Tuck.

Mr. Shinwell: This civil servant made a complaint to the hon. and learned Member about the operation of the promotion rules in the War Department, as a result of which he had been replaced by a junior, and in his own view his prospects of promotion had accordingly been prejudiced.
It is a firmly established rule, and one well understood throughout the Civil Service, that promotion in the Service must neither depend, nor even appear to depend, upon influence brought to bear from outside the Service. This rule is embodied in the regulations which govern the administration of War Department civilian staff. In these regulations it is laid down that
any attempt on the part of an employee to secure promotion by bringing any indirect influence to bear in his support will be regarded as an admission that the case is not deserving of consideration on its merits, and will be treated as an offence against discipline.
In seeking the hon. and learned Member's support for his claim, this civil servant has committed a disciplinary offence. It is for this reason that he is being reprimanded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this civil servant did not write seeking to secure promotion, but, as the letter which I received from the Financial Secretary to the War Office says, complaining that he had to relinquish that promotion? In those circumstances will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: If the person concerned wrote about relinquishing his promotion, obviously he had the same object in view, and all that I have to say is that there is a recognised procedure for dealing with these matters. There is the Whitley Council, and if the person referred to had any grievance he could have put the

matter before his side of the Whitley Council for consideration.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman complaining because this civil servant wrote to his Member of Parliament?

Mr. Shinwell: I am most certainly complaining that this civil servant wrote to a Member of Parliament seeking the influence of the Member of Parliament in connection with his promotion.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that a man in uniform can write to his Member of Parliament on any subject, and would the same action have been taken against this man had he been a soldier?

Mr. Shinwell: It is well understood that a soldier has a right to write to his Member of Parliament and state his grievance, if he has one, but in the case of the serving man he has not got either trade unions or a Whitley Council at his disposal.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This is very important, and I merely put this question for information: Is the right hon. Gentleman laying it down as a definite statement of principle that no civil servant is able to write to a Member of Parliament about his position and conditions of employment?

Mr. Shinwell: I most certainly am not, but what I am saying is that no civil servant should write to a Member of Parliament seeking to use the influence of a Member of Parliament in a matter of promotion.

Mr. W. J. Brown: While recognising and fully endorsing what the Minister has said about the impropriety of an individual civil servant seeking to secure promotion by outside influence—a point upon which all civil servants' trade unions are utterly at one with the Government—may I ask the Secretary of State for War two questions: whether he will distinguish sharply between a letter from an individual civil servant seeking outside help to get promotion and a letter from a civil servant to any Member of Parliament voicing grievances of the public service; and, secondly, will he distinguish between the effort to secure promotion and to avoid de-motion, because I understand that that may be involved in this case?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already made the distinction.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While I recognise that it would be a wrong thing to seek to secure promotion by means of writing to a Member of Parliament, in view of the unsatisfactory reply to the Question, and also because this civil servant did not seek promotion, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Manpower Committee (Reports)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Secretary of State for War what reports have been submitted to him by the Army Manpower Committee since May 1947; and which of the recommendations made are now being implemented.

Mr. Shinwell: The Army Manpower Committee have submitted to me two written reports, the report which I mentioned in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) on 20th January and a report on ordnance installations. The chairman visits me from time to time and reports progress, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State attends the meetings of the Committee. The recommendations of the Committee are dealt with by normal departmental action, and have covered the results of their examination of nearly all the Army's services. It would be quite impracticable to describe in answer to a Parliamentary Question those recommendations which are being implemented. For example, in the case of the ordnance investigations alone, although the present organisation was found to be generally sound, several hundred recommendations were made and are being implemented.

Flood Damage, Hampshire

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the state of affairs at Ludshott Common and Fullers Vale near Headley, Hampshire, where, owing to the continuous use of the slopes by tracked vehicles, the vegetation has been destroyed and the soil consolidated, so that after heavy rain the water rushes down into the valley causing damage to houses, gardens and roads; and why, after admitting liability for damage and after carrying out works, which have been only partially effective, the War

Office now declines to take any further steps to mitigate the damage caused.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the position in this area. My Department has spent some thousands of pounds in measures to prevent flooding and all claims for compensation for damage to private property caused by flooding have been settled at a cost of little over £100. The Department is negotiating a claim for the reinstatement of Ludshott Common with the National Trust, who are the owners. The risk of flooding is being further reduced by the return of vegetation on the Common.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware that the surface of these slopes has become practically as hard as asphalt; that vegetable growth is so slow that it is almost imperceptible; that it is very small comfort to persons suffering inconvenience and damage to be told that this loss is not likely to occur as frequently in the future as it has in the past, and will he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: We recognise that some inconvenience has been caused to pedestrians in this neighbourhood, but we are doing all that we can to reduce that inconvenience.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware that inconvenience has been caused not only to pedestrians but to others, that houses have been flooded in certain instances, and that gardens have practically been washed away?

Mr. Shinwell: This matter is still under investigation and we are not disposing of it because we have replied to a Parliamentary Question.

Released Personnel (Reserve Obligations)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War what obligation rests on demobilised men, other than Regular Reservists, to present, themselves for further service if mobilisation should be rendered necessary by any fresh emergency; and whether he will cause the position and obligations of such men to be made perfectly clear.

Mr. Shinwell: It should be clearly understood that all officers and men who have left the Army under the release scheme are still members of the Reserve.


Their liability to recall will continue until the emergency is declared to be at an end. This information is given to each officer and man on the last page of his release book.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Would the Secretary of State make this clear in a further order, so that it will be clearly understood by all personnel concerned, because a great many of them think that they are demobilised for good and that there is no question of their recall?

Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that the answer I have given, which is very specific, will have made the matter clear.

Mr. Frank Byers: Has a man or an officer to get permission to leave the country if he is on the Reserve?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot reply to that question offhand.

War Graves

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether graves of personnel killed in France and buried in churchyards or other recognised burying grounds are moved to military cemeteries without reference to the next-of-kin or relations; and whether he will cause full and up-to-date information as to any action taken or proposed regarding such graves and as to the nature and material of the headstones to be invariably conveyed to the next-of-kin.

Mr. Shinwell: It is seldom necessary to move graves from a churchyard or other recognised burial ground into a military cemetery. When it is necessary the next-of-kin are now always informed beforehand of the move and the reasons for it. The Imperial War Graves Commission will provide headstones which will in North-West Europe be of Portland stone. The Commission are responsible for the permanent maintenance of all war graves both in military cemeteries and in other recognised burial grounds. The Commission consult the next-of-kin in advance about the inscriptions on headstones.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been cases in which the next-of-kin have not been informed about the moving, of graves in the manner he has stated? If I send him a specific instance, will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly I will.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The Question refers only to France. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's answer covers all North-West Europe as well?

Mr. Shinwell: I believe it does, but the difficulties vary on the Continent.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the "full and up-to-date information" referred to in the Question includes photographs of the new graves, and whether these photographs are now being sent reasonably quickly, because there has been a good deal of delay?

Mr. Shinwell: We are sending photographs, but I am bound to say that I am a little reluctant to have photographs sent unless the graves are in a very satisfactory condition.

Military Stores, Palestine

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated value of military stores which it was necessary either to destroy or to leave behind in Palestine.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not possible to give any estimate of the value of the comparatively small amount of military stores which it was necessary to destroy or abandon in Palestine.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether repatriation of prisoners of war from this country has now been completed except for those who have volunteered to stay; and how many were repatriated from the Middle East during the month of June.

Mr. Shinwell: Repatriation of German prisoners of war from this country was completed yesterday, except for a small number of invalids and others. Approximately 4,750 German prisoners of war were repatriated from the Middle East during June.

Mr. Hector Hughes: With regard to those who volunteer to stay in the country, what facilities are offered to them to acquire British nationality and be absorbed into the industrial life of this country?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not see anything about that in the Question.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's figure for repatriation from the Middle East means that all these men will have gone by the end of September, or some near date?

Mr. Shinwell: Offhand, I should think there must be some remaining.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY RECRUITING (SURVEY)

Mr. Marples: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now studied the results of the social survey carried out by the Central Office of Information to ascertain the reactions of all sections of the community to Territorial Army recruiting; and if he will arrange for a copy of the survey to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot yet add to the reply which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 29th June.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider placing a copy in the Library so that hon. Members can read the results of this survey?

Mr. Shinwell: I will as soon as we have given it proper study.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Wireless Stations, Dorset

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the proposal to erect wireless stations for the use of the police on Bulbarrow and Eggardon Hills, Dorset; and what action he proposes to take in this matter, having regard to the amenities of the county and the objections raised to the proposal by the Dorset Joint Planning Committee.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): Yes, Sir, as to Eggardon Hill; possible alternative sites are under consideration and no formal application for permission has therefore yet been made to the local planning authority. As to Bulbarrow Hill, this is at present held on requisition by the Air Ministry; the permanent disposal of the site and buildings on relinquishment will

be considered nearer the time. There is, however, a proposal that they should make available to the Dorset Police part of the existing station. This proposal is still under consideration.

Mr. Byers: May I ask the Minister how long it is expected to be before the site on Bulbarrow will be derequisitioned?

Mr. Silkin: That is not a question for me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: For what purpose should the Dorset Police want to use a wireless station in this loveliest of lovely countryside?

Artillery Range, Bamburgh

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the findings of the public local inquiry held on 16th June in regard to the proposal to establish an anti-tank artillery range near Bamburgh and Holy Island have now been considered by him; and whether he will now make a statement in the light of its findings.

Mr. Silkin: I have not yet received the report on this public local inquiry, but the decision of the Government will be announced as soon as possible after its receipt.

Development Rights (Compensation Claims)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning from whom should the appropriate claim form be obtained when making an application for compensation for loss of development rights under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Mr. Silkin: The claim form, known as S. 1, may, except in the London County Council area, be obtained from the office of any county council or borough, urban district or rural district council. In the London County Council area it may be obtained from County Hall, or, in the City of London from the Town Clerk's Office. It is also available at the various offices of the Central Land Board.

Mr. Erroll: Are supplies available yet at all these places?

Mr. Silkin: So far as I know, yes, Sir.

Brigadier Medlicott: In view of the way in which people have been penalised


under the War Damage Acts by failure to observe the time limits, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that before this time limit is reached the greatest attention will be paid to the publicising of the date, either by broadcasting or by other means, so that further difficulties will not be created?

Mr. Silkin: Without commenting on the question of the War Damage Commission, I can only say that everything we possibly can do to bring this to the notice of the public is being done and will be done.

Stanford and Purbeck Training Areas

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government in regard to the future of the Stanford and Purbeck training areas.

Mr. Silkin: I expect to be able to make a statement after Questions on Monday next. In the meanwhile I shall be visiting the areas for discussions with representatives of the interests concerned.

Mr. Dye: Can my right hon. Friend say that the statement will convey the final decision of the Government about these battle training areas?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, Sir.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can I offer the right hon. Gentleman any entertainment in my constituency in the coming few days?

Mr. Silkin: I should like to know the nature of the entertainment before I reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Vagrants, Devon

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of National Insurance what arrangements are being made to ensure the continuation after the approved day of the work being carried out in Devon under the auspices of the Devon Joint Vagrancy Committee for the relief of casuals in reception centres and for their rehabilitation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): The National Assistance Board, who are now responsible for the relief of casuals, have made arrangements with the local authorities concerned for reception centres to be maintained at Barnstaple, Exeter and Plymouth. With the help of authorities and of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Board intend to continue the good work which has already been done by joint vagrancy committees in placing casuals in employment and otherwise persuading them to adopt a more settled way of life, and I am able to inform the hon. Member that the new reception centre at Plymouth is already showing good results in placing men in work.

Mr. Amory: As the local authorities concerned have done useful pioneer work, as the Minister has indicated, will he ensure that that experience is made full use of and that all possible emphasis will be put on rehabilitation rather than on mere relief?

Mr. Steele: The Board are very conscious of that, and that is their desire. In fact, since the new reception centre was opened at Plymouth on 7th June, out of the 59 men admitted, 24 have already been placed in work.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell us whether this joint vagrancy committee, when dealing with vagrants, will make certain to get rid of the vermin?

Outworkers, Gloving Industry

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that outworkers in the gloving industry are classed as self-employed; and whether, as this operates as an undue burden upon them, he will amend the regulations to enable them to be classed as employees.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Outworkers are not employed under a contract of service but under a contract for services and therefore fall into the class of self-employed persons under the Act. There is power to make regulations to modify the nomal classification in particular cases, but the National Insurance Advisory Committee


recommended that outworkers were properly insurable as self-employed persons and, having regard to the difficulties of administering unemployment benefit in their case, should not be transferred by regulation to the employed class. I have accepted the Committee's view. An out-worker whose total income is less than £104 a year will be able to claim exception from liability to contribute but may, if he wishes, contribute as though he were a non-employed person. Many out-workers are married women who need not contribute whatever their earnings or income.

Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that until the new Act came into force the employers paid their share of the contribution, as did the employees, and that by his ruling now the employees' rate of weekly contribution will go from 1s. 10d. to 6s. 2d. a week? Is this not a very undue burden on them, and will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Griffiths: It is a very difficult matter. Perhaps I might point out that these outworkers were never covered for unemployment insurance, and, that is what makes the difficulty now. I invited the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look carefully into this matter to see whether it would be possible to bring these people into Class I, as we did with the share fishermen, by making suitable arrangements about unemployment benefit. The Committee were satisfied that we could not do that, and because of that they made their recommendation, which I felt compelled to accept.

Brigadier Peto: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great need for the encouragement of women to go into industry, and is he aware that this is hardly encouraging to women, who are in this case practically the whole of the outworkers, to go into that industry?

Mr. Griffiths: These women work at home and do not go into the industry. However, I appreciate the point which has been put. If there had been any possible way, or if any way is discovered, by which we could admit them into Class I, while avoiding the obvious abuse of the Unemployment Fund which is possible, I would gladly reconsider the matter.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many disabled persons are in this category and that serious hardship is being caused to them by this increase of contribution?

Mr. Griffiths: There would be an increased contribution into whichever class they came. That is part of the National Insurance Act. Let me put it quite frankly—the National Insurance Advisory Committee, who have a very wide experience in this matter, have definitely recommended that they cannot think of any practical arrangement which could be made to admit outworkers as Class I. We were able to do that in the case of the share fishermen, and if it were possible here I would be glad to do it, but after careful consideration the Advisory Committee cannot recommend it.

Mr. Beecham: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that he is prepared to reconsider this grading? It is a very important matter because I understand the Government are trying to encourage work done in cottage homes for the benefit of the community, and is it not a fact that it will have an increasing effect on a large number of people working in rural areas?

Mr. Griffiths: I said I would be prepared to reconsider it if a practical scheme could be devised. So far none has been devised, and that is why I have had to accept the recommendation of the Committee.

Surrendered Cards (Receipts)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will arrange for receipts to be given to those who hand in their National Health cards.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 9th July to the question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), a copy of which I am sending him.

Industrial Diseases (Committee's Report)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether the Departmental Committee appointed in June, 1947, to advise him on the exercise of his powers relating to industrial diseases


under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, has yet submitted its report; and whether he will publish such a report together with the evidence submitted to the committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have not yet received the report of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers. When I receive it I will consider the question of publication, but it is not usual to publish the evidence submitted to committees of this nature.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As the Minister has had perforce to issue regulations to make the Act workable before receiving the report of the Dale Committee, would he consider again the form of the regulations when he has received the report, particularly with regard to the question of whether pneumoconiosis and silicosis, and other comparable diseases, should not be treated on the same footing as other industrial diseases?

Mr. Griffiths: When I announced the setting up of a committee, I said that when the report was available I would consider it with its full implications upon this type of industrial diseases.

Family Allowances

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will take powers to amend the National Insurance Act so as to end the anomaly in the case of a man with children of a first marriage who lives with another woman and has further children by her, whereby the children are assessed separately for the purpose of family allowances, with the result that within the single family there are two first children.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No, Sir. I am not prepared to introduce amending legislation for the purposes suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As the effect of this anomaly is that where there are four babies in one family, born of two separate mothers, they only get the benefit for two children whereas, where they are the same family born of one mother and two separate fathers they get the benefit for three children, will the Minister not recognise that this is quite a silly anomaly?

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that there is an anomaly, but this is a very controversial matter, and the question has been considered by this House quite recently. My reply is that I am not prepared to consider amending legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Remploy Factory, Radcliffe

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now reached a decision regarding the future use of the Training Centre at Radcliffe as a Remploy factory.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir. It has now been decided that part of the Government Training Centre at Radcliffe should be made available for a Remploy factory.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that it has taken six months of effort on the part of the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) and myself to obtain this concession will not diminish the pleasure felt in the area as a result of it? Will he allow us to keep an open mind as to whether or not it goes far enough, and perhaps to raise the matter later?

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure my hon. Friend that I share the pleasure with him, because there have been considerable difficulties to overcome, but I am hoping that we shall be able to get this moving now in a couple of months.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pleasure will be in exact relationship to the amount of the factory space that is being made available, and whether it is adequate for the purpose or not?

European Voluntary Workers

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Labour what age restrictions are imposed on European voluntary workers entering this country; and in the case of men who become agricultural workers, if they are allowed to leave agriculture and take up other work on attaining the age of fifty.

Mr. Isaacs: The upper age limit for admission is normally 50 but some older men have been accepted. European voluntary workers, of whatever age, are


not free to change from one employment to another without permission. I am having inquiries made into the case about which the hon. and gallant Member has sent me particulars and will write to him.

Mr. Vane: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any limit to the total number of European voluntary workers that he can introduce into this country?

Mr. Isaacs: There is no limitation of the actual number of workers, looking at it from that angle; the number is limited by the requirement there is for them.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that a good many farmers in my constituency and in other constituencies would like to bring back to this country German ex-prisoner workers, will he be able to make this easier to do?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather a different question. It deals with prisoners of war, and I am dealing with European voluntary workers at the moment.

Mr. Stubbs: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that subject to medical fitness the whole family of Mr. Huryn, of Austria, was accepted for employment in England under the European voluntary workers scheme in August, 1947, and that only one of the family has been allowed to travel to England, and why the rest of the family have not been allowed to travel in accordance with the scheme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Three adult sons of this family have been in this country for some time. The transfer of the rest of the family consisting of the father and mother and a child has been delayed because of the shortage of family accommodation, but I am hopeful that it will be possible to bring them here at an early date.

Musicians, B.B.C.

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Musicians' Union have given notice that on 1st August next it is their intention to withdraw all musicians from the B.B.C. with the exception of the ten house bands; and if he will make a full statement on the position, indicating who is responsible

for the negotiations which have taken place between the Corporation and the union; and what steps have been taken in regard to arbitration.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I am informed that notice has been given to the B.B.C. by the Musicians' Union. The position, as I understand it, is that this dispute concerns the minimum rates to be paid to certain musicians taking part in broadcasts, a considerable proportion of whom are not directly employed by the B.B.C. These minimum rates have been negotiated in the past between the B.B.C. and the Musicians' Union and the negotiations that have recently taken place are the responsibility of the parties concerned. No steps have been taken in regard to arbitration. The parties are aware that the services of my Department are available to them.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend give consideration to bringing his influence to bear upon the B.B.C. to encourage them to set up suitable machinery to get this sort of problem cleared up? Does he not recognise that this is one further instance which shows that adequate machinery is not available?

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend is not correctly informed. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that this is not in the normal run of industrial negotiations because, in this matter, the B.B.C. is not mainly the employer, but merely the contractor between the bands and the workers concerned. So far as our intervention is concerned, both parties know that it is available to them, the trade unions say they are willing to come when required, and we are awaiting a communication from the B.B.C.

Joint Consultation (Film)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour how much public money was expended in producing the Ministry of Labour film "They Gave Him the Works"; and whether this film is going to be released, in view of the strong criticism it has already evoked.

Mr. Isaacs: This film, which deals with the important subject of joint consultation in industry, was produced by the Central Office of Information for my Department at a cost of £7,059. It has already been widely distributed in cinemas and, as can


be expected of a film on a subject of public interest, has received both criticism and praise.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people who saw the pre-view of this film in Manchester at the end of June were of the opinion that it depicted an old factory with the people quarrelling amongst themselves, and could do no good work for industrial relations? Will he have it withdrawn?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen the film, but I have, and I consider it is a very good method of drawing attention to the differences that exist between management and workers, and is a good way of putting it over. I hope there will be an opportunity to show it in the House of Commons cinema next week.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I ask who is the person to whom the works have to be given?

Mr. Gallacher: As the Minister is aware that there is very little hope of the employers giving the workers the works, should not the title of the film be, "Let Them Take The Works"?

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister confirm that the events depicted in this film are anything but typical of the good relations in the vast majority of factories in this country?

Mr. Isaacs: If hon. Members would only see the film, they would understand that it depicts the bad conditions at the beginning, the way to get good conditions, and the good conditions that have been obtained at the end.

Ukrainian Prisoners of War

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Labour how many Ukrainian prisoners of war remain in this country; what they are now doing; and what plans are there for their future disposal.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that 8,397 Ukrainian prisoners of war are still in this country. They are mainly employed on agricultural work. The answer to the last part of the Question is that this matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Beswick: May I ask exactly what my right hon. Friend means when he says that he understands from the Secretary of State for War? Is not my right hon. Friend responsible for these men and, if so, can he say by what date his Department intends to make a decision as to their future?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is in the negative; I am not responsible for them.

Mr. Driberg: In that case, can my right hon. Friend say why the Question was not transferred to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Isaacs: That is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware that this Question was first put down to the Secretary of State for War, who passed it on to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Driberg: Can we not have a further explanation from my right hon. Friend of his degree of responsibility?

Remploy Factories, South Wales

Mr. David Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour if any special steps are contemplated to deal with the problem of resettling severely disabled unemployed persons in South Wales.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The Disabled Persons Employment Corporation has opened Remploy factories at Bridgend, Swansea and Treforest. Similar factories, at Blackwood, Tonyrefail, Treorchy, another place, beginning with Y—Ystradgynlais—Merthyr, Brynamman and Porth should be open by the end of the year and a further seven as soon as practicable thereafter. A homeworking scheme is based on the Bridgend factory and similar schemes will be developed from other factories.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he will be able to absorb the greater proportion of the severely disabled persons from South Wales within the next 12 months?

Mr. Isaacs: I would not like to give a positive answer, but I can say that, for the purpose of collecting the rather scattered units in this area, we have now appointed a committee consisting of the chairmen of the local disabled persons


employment advisory committees, with representatives of the British Legion and employers of workers, to co-ordinate the whole of the work and bring about more drive.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is not the fact that the Minister is completely unable to pronounce Welsh names an indication that a Minister for Wales is required?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is only an indication of the little pity which other hon. Members should have for a poor Cockney Minister.

Mr. Peter Freeman: If my right hon. Friend is unable to provide permanent factories as a result of this scheme, would he consider taking over existing temporary buildings so that they may be utilised to provide these facilities?

Mr. Isaacs: It is impossible, in answer to a supplementary question, to give further details, but we are already doing what the hon. Member has asked. I can assure him that we are most anxious to see that these scattered elements in this area are brought together and cared for.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an additional Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in order that there may be separate junior Ministers to deal with Education and Agriculture in Scotland.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. As at present advised, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not consider that an additional appointment is necessary.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the greatly increased responsibilities laid upon the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretaries by the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill, and his responsibilities under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is it not time to reconsider this matter and appoint a wholetime Under-Secretary for each of these two functions?

Mr. Morrison: It is a really novel doctrine that every time an Act of Parliament is passed, a Minister must be appointed. If we go on like that, heaven

only knows how many Ministers we shall have.

Mr. Rankin: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that Scottish administrative affairs require the appointment not of an additional Under-Secretary, but of two additional Ministers of senior rank?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I am not convinced of that either.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who advised the Prime Minister in this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS

Mr. Marples: asked the Prime Minister when he now expects to receive the report from the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands that the Royal Commission on the Press is not yet in a position to say when its report will be presented, but that it is unlikely to be before the beginning of next year.

Mr. Marples: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely to be delayed because of the reluctance of the Minister of Health to substantiate abusive statements in the country and, if the Minister of Health does not accept the invitation to give evidence, will that fact be recorded in the proceedings?

Mr. Morrison: I wish that when hon. Members have a particular purpose in putting down a Question, they would try to reveal it in the Question. That would give Ministers an opportunity to prepare the replies they want to make. This Question has nothing whatever to do with the Minister of Health.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman use his well-known influence and popularity with the Minister of Health to induce him to give evidence, so that the Commission may expedite its report?

Mr. Morrison: I have always understood that these functions of Parliamentary persuasion were reserved to the Father of the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Sterling Balances

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total annual amounts of repayments of sterling balances agreed upon for the current year.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason His Majesty's Government have agreed to release sums from sterling balances in 1948 at approximately treble the annual rate of 1947.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): In my answer to the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) on 29th June, I gave particulars of sterling releases and working balances provided for under agreements at present in force. Apart from the latest agreements with India and Pakistan, about which I shall be making an announcement shortly, further releases amounting to £25 million are due to be made from sterling balances up to the end of 1948, bringing the total sums so far released for current purposes (excluding initial working balances) to £82.5 for the whole year. The suggestion contained in the question of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch is, therefore, not correct.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the fact that the Government have already committed the country far beyond the bounds of prudence, will the Chancellor give an undertaking that he will not release any more sterling balances for the current year in any subsequent agreements and, secondly, will he answer Question No. 48?

Sir S. Cripps: I will when the time comes.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Chancellor, when he says the figures quoted in my Question are not correct, whether this is because he excludes working balances from his computation and, secondly, if he was correctly reported yesterday in saying that the prime duty of England was to see that our imports were paid for by exports, why he has released this grossly excessive amount, which must result in unrequited exports?

Sir S. Cripps: In answer to the first part of the Question, I did not suggest

that the hon. Member's figures were wrong. I suggested that the implication which he drew from them was wrong. As regards the second part of the Question, we are satisfied that it is in the best interests of this country that these arrangements should be made.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with the exception of India and Pakistan, to which he referred, there are any other agreements which are likely to be made during the course of the year?

Sir S. Cripps: Not that I am conscious of.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement mean that we are now saddled with a further £25 million of unrequited exports?

Sir S. Cripps: It means in fact that for the general purposes of our economy we have thought it right that these sums should be released.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But is the Chancellor aware that in the first five months of this year he has released £60 million more of sterling balances than in the whole of 1947, and how can this lead to anything but a greater drain on our unrequited exports?

Sir S. Cripps: Those figures are completely wrong, as the hon. and gallant Member will see if he looks into them.

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent interest paid on blocked sterling balances is available for payment of purchases on current account.

Sir S. Cripps: Interest paid on blocked sterling balances is as a general rule available for purchases on current account.

Mr. Shepherd: As this is yet a further drain upon our limited resources, will the Chancellor give an undertaking that he will not reproduce this agreement in any subsequent deals which he makes on the subject of sterling balances?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly not. It is taken into account when the other matter of releases is considered.

Overseas Visitors (Imported Goods)

Mr. Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amending the regulations so as to permit Colonial or Dominion nationals who are making a temporary stay in this country of longer than six months to bring in, free of duty and Purchase Tax, articles intended for personal use in this country.

Sir S. Cripps: Concessions are already in force which go a long way in this direction. I do not think anything further is required, and in any case an extension would have to be general in its application.

Mr. Digby: Is the Chancellor aware that these are just the kind of regulations which discourage people from coming here from the Dominions to study and spend their money? Does he not agree that it is most undesirable that they should be discouraged in this way from spending their money here?

Sir S. Cripps: We have had no evidence at all of any discouragement or complaint.

Canadian Dollars (Personal Case)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the small amount of Canadian dollars needed cannot be made available to Mrs. Darby of 130, St. John's Wood High Street, St. Marylebone, to enable her daughter who has been seriously ill in Canada and whose particulars have been sent to him, to return home for convalescence; and if he will review this and other similar cases.

Sir S. Cripps: Residents in the United Kingdom are only permitted to pay the

fares of non-residents visiting the United Kingdom in exceptional circumstances. I have already informed the hon. Member that Mrs. Darby's application would be allowed if it could be shown that her visit was essential on health grounds. This has not been shown so far. I am always prepared to review this or any other case if fresh evidence is put before me.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer think it a shocking thing that within the British Commonwealth a daughter with two children is not allowed to return home to see her own mother, even though a medical certificate has been produced? Does he realise that when a thing like this happens in the British Empire, he ought to hang his head in shame?

Sir S. Cripps: Nevertheless, it is unfortunately necessary to preserve the dollar resources of the British Empire.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is it not possible for parents to be allowed to pay the passage money in sterling in this country?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not possible to pay passages in sterling. They have to be paid in dollars and it is only where there is a good health ground that that is permitted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 135.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Berry, H.
Byers, Frank


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Beswick, F.
Callaghan, James


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bing, G. H. C.
Carmichael, James


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Binns, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, A. R.
Chamberlain, R. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Boardman, H.
Cluse, W. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cocks, F. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Coldrick, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collindridge, F.


Balfour, A.
Bramall, E. A.
Collins, V. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Barton, C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Battley, J. R.
Brown, George (Belper)
Cook, T. F.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.


Belcher, J. W.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Benson, G.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Corlett, Dr. J.




Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Crawley, A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kendall, W. D.
Sargood, R.


Daggar, G.
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Scott-Elliott, W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lever, N. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
Levy, B. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Delargy, H. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Diamond, J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Dobbie, W.
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dodds, N. N.
Longden, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
McAdam, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dye, S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Snow, J. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Solley, L. J.


Edelman, M.
Mack, J. D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Steele, T.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McKinley, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, R. R.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stubbs, A. E.


Ewart, R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Swingler, S.


Fairhurst, F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Sylvester, G. O.


Farthing, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Symonds, A L.


Fernyhough, E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, H. A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Foot, M. M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Forman, J. C.
Mashers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mellish, R. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gallacher, W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mikardo, Ian
Tiffany, S.


Gibbins, J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Timmons, J.


Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W.
Titterington, M. F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.
Tolley, L.


Goodrich, H. E.
Morley, R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Usborne, Henry


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Viant, S. P.


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wadsworth, G.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Murray J. D.
Walkden, E.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Walker, G. H.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gunter, R. J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Warbey, W. N.


Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Watkins, T. E.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Watson, W. M.


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Orbach, M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Hardy, E. A.
Parkin, B. T.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Harrison, J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paton, J. (Norwich)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Haworth, J.
Pearson, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Herbison, Miss M.
Perrins, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hicks, G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Holman, P.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Horabin, T. L.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


House, G.
Price, M. Philips
Willis, E.


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hubbard, T.
Pryde, D. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E.
Woods, G. S.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Ranger, J.
Wyatt, W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Reeves, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rhodes, H.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Richards, R.



Jay, D. P. T.
Robens, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. Simmons and


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Mr. Wilkins.


Jenkins, R. H.
Rogers, G. H. R.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Beechman, N. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Birch, Nigel
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan


Baldwin, A. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Bossom, A. C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.







Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Carson, E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Pickthorn, K.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prescott, Stanley


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


De la Bère, R.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Robinson, Roland


Digby, S. W.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Ropner, Col. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Scott, Lord W.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, S. (Newark)


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Eccles, D. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Walter
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Snadden, W. M.


Erroll, F. J.
MacLeod, J.
Spence, H. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maitland, Comdr, J. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Gage, C.
Marples, A. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gammons, L. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant, Lady
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Gridley, Sir A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)
York, C.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholson, G.



Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Odey, G. W.
Mr. Studholme and




Major Ramsay.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

3.42 p.m.

The Chairman: Before I call upon the Home Secretary to move the first Amendment I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion on the first Amendment if that meets with the agreement of the Committee, as it appears to me that one of the main matters in difference would then be covered.

CLAUSE 1.—(British nationality.)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, page 1, line 7, to leave out "British subject," and to insert "citizen."
The purpose of this Amendment and the corresponding Amendments to later Clauses which appear in considerable numbers on the Order Paper is to restore the Bill to the form in which it was before it was altered in another place. The Bill as it was originally drafted centred round the conception of citizenship, and the nomenclature now used in the Bill, by substituting "British subject" for "citizen" has blurred this conception and rendered its provisions incomprehensible.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has done his best to carry to their logical conclusion the alterations that were made in another place, which had been left there in a somewhat unfinished condition. I should not like to say that even what he has done would completely fill the picture, but as I shall ask the Committee to reject that way of looking at the Bill, I cannot do more than thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the pains which he has evidently taken to see that as far as possible the Bill, if it could be moulded to his desire, would be reasonably workable.
This matter was fully discussed on Second Reading and the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby summarised his objections to the word "citizen" in four propositions which are to be found in columns 410 and 411 of the

OFFICIAL REPORT for Wednesday last. His first objection was that "citizen" essentially implies the common enjoyment of civic rights and the acceptance of civic responsibilities and is not appropriate for describing the relationship and geographical situation of this country and the Colonies. The second was that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies suggests assimilation of the Colonies with the United Kingdom. The third was that allegiance to the King in person is the all-important bond in the Colonies, where the bond is not allegiance to a political system. His fourth objection was that the creation of a separate citizenship is an encouragement to differentiation between different classes of British subjects, which is contradictory of our metropolitan tradition of giving hospitality to everyone from every part of the Commonwealth.
3.45 p.m.
I think that the Attorney-General dealt adequately with those objections in the reply he made in the Second Reading Debate, but it would probably be convenient if I stated as briefly as I can, the answer which we make to each of the four objections raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If we take the first objection that citizenship essentially means the common enjoyment of civic rights and the acceptance of civic responsibilities and is not appropriate for describing the relationship and geographical situation of this country and the Colonies, I would say that citizenship is the appropriate term because it is this Parliament at Westminster which is legislating and which can only legislate for the United Kingdom and Colonies, and the area of sovereignty and citizenship are the same.
This country cannot impose a law with regard to nationality upon any other Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Each of them is a distinct sovereign State for this purpose. We can leglislate only for the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that is what we are doing. We are not using the word in any sense different from that which it has in the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946. All that the Canadian Act does, all that we do at this stage, is to define who are the citizens of the sovereign State in respect of which the appropriate legislature is passing legislation. It would be quite possible for Canada or any other


Commonwealth country to do what we propose to do, that is, to give the same rights to all classes of British subjects and not to confine them to its citizens, but that is a matter for each country to decide for itself. It will not affect in any way the structure of the citizenship law.
What the Canadian Act did was to define which existing British subjects are now Canadians and how, in future, persons will become Canadians. We are doing exactly that in our Bill. We are selecting from the sum of British subjects who are to be our citizens, and we are laying down the conditions as to how persons will become our citizens in future. What rights or obligations those citizens shall have in another country is a matter for the local legislature to decide. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, a person's rights in Edinburgh may be different from his rights in London or in Nigeria. That depends on the local law. We are not by this Measure doing other than establishing the local law for that area over which this Parliament has sovereign jurisdiction.
I come to the second objection, that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies suggests assimilation of the Colonies with the United Kingdom. There is no question of assimilation. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his reply the other night, the Colonies are moving towards independence. When any Colony reaches the stage of being a self-governing country, and can enact a citizenship law of its own, it will be added to Clause 1 of the Bill, just as Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon appear in Clause 1.
To take the third objection, that allegiance to the King in person is an all-important bond in the Colonies, this Bill does not alter in the slightest degree the position of various subjects of the King in the Colonies. If they so desire they can go on calling themselves British subjects. Take the last objection, it is not our intention to abandon our metropolitan tradition and the Bill cannot possibly be any encouragement to any person so minded. But the Statute of Westminster is a legislative fact of which this House must take every consideration in its discussion on this matter. Whether we like it or not now, we have said that each of the self-governing Dominions is equal with us in status inside this agreed Commonwealth of Nations.
In my experience, those parents are least successful with growing families who retain too possessive an attitude towards the younger members of the family. I wonder how many families have been wrecked by possessive mothers not realising that the children have grown up. In this matter this country is now, and has been since the passing of the Statute of Westminster, one of the great self-governing parts of this Commonwealth of Nations. We must expect as our fellow nations grow in stature and experience, and as fresh nations come into the self-governing position, that they will expect that the words of our laws shall in fact coincide with the principles which have been enunciated in the Statute of Westminster.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby commented upon the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 and referred to the principles enunciated at the Imperial Conferences in 1930 and 1937, of which the principal one was:
It is for each member of the Commonwealth to define for itself its own nationals, but so far as possible, these persons should be persons possessing the common status. …
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the Canadian Act was passed in accordance with these principles. He added:
What I am worried about is that the assumption behind the principles which I have quoted from the Imperial Conferences was that British subjecthood was the basic nationality, though members of the Commonwealth could define their own nationals or citizens confining them 'so far as possible' to British subjects …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 404.]
I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has understood the change which has in fact been effected by the Canadian Act of 1946. Previous to that Act two countries, Canada in 1921 and South Africa in 1927, have enacted citizenship legislation in accordance with the principles stated at the Imperial Conferences in 1930 and 1937. The legislation passed by Canada in 1921, and by South Africa in 1927 was based on the principle that Dominion nationality is a sub-division of British nationality, a small circle within a larger. In 1947 Canada departed from this principle. She repealed her statute corresponding to our Act of 1914, and thereby abolished the larger circle. Instead she created a new


species of Canadian citizens and gave them the generic term, "British subjects." Canadian citizenship is no longer a small circle within the larger. It is a separate entity.
The purpose of this Bill is to conform to this new conception of each part of the Commonwealth, including this country, having a separate citizenship, with the sum of the citizens making up the family of British subjects or Commonwealth citizens. That is the understanding we have arrived at with the other countries, and there is no reason to suppose that they do not propose to adhere to this principle in their legislation.
I know that that proposition was challenged on the last occasion and I have, since then, been in communication with the Prime Minster of Australia, who is in this country. He has authorised me to say that in the Bill which is in draft he is in agreement with what we are doing and that his Bill will be on precisely the same lines as this Bill. I hope that will remove the feeling in some quarters that this was a matter that has not in fact been negotiated between the various Governments of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question? He has just informed the House that he has seen the present Prime Minister of Australia. Were the negotiations before the interview which he has had in the last few days?

Mr. Ede: Perhaps I may repeat the position, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I am anxious there shall be no misunderstanding about what has happened. There was in 1946 a meeting of Prime Ministers in this country, at which this subject was discussed. Agreement was there reached that the various countries of the Commonwealth should proceed with legislation on these lines. The Prime Ministers suggested that there should be a meeting of civil servants from each of the self-governing parts of the British Commonwealth to consider the way in which this conception could be put into legislation. That conference of civil servants met in February, 1947. It reached certain conclusions and recommendations which were sent to each of the Governments concerned. Each of the Governments concerned expressed their

satisfaction with the arrangement that had been made.
The communication which I had recently, and now report to the Committee, is one that took place because of the doubts that were expressed last week. I was not quite sure whether any consultation had been held or whether the views and proposals expressed during 1947 were still the views of the various Dominion Governments. I was trying to inform the Committee that the one Prime Minister with whom we could get into direct touch, still adheres to the views expressed by his Government, and that legislation in his Parliament is being prepared on those lines.
4.0 p.m.
I hope that the Committee will realise that we are dealing here with a subject of the utmost importance. I hope that nothing I have said in the course of these discussions has indicated that I regard the matter as one of trifling concern. We are dealing with one of the manifestations of growth inside this living democratic organism, the British Commonwealth of Nations. I am sure that we are all exceedingly anxious that the older self-governing Dominions shall be entitled to feel that in our eyes as well as in their own, they have attained full nationhood. I am sure that we are quite as anxious that those new countries to whom self-government has been recently granted by this country shall also feel that inside this Commonwealth, they are not merely welcome but are recognised as being equal sovereign States with the rest of us, and that we treasure their adherence to this great family of nations.
It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the same words mean such different things to different people and that a phrase that is accepted without demur and even with pride by certain people, should be regarded by other people as having some indication of inferiority. As I said the other day, I do not imagine that any hon. Member of this House has ever had the slightest qualm in describing himself as a British subject. I have noticed sometimes when staying in Wales when looking at the visitors' book in the hotel that a number of people insist upon describing themselves as "Welsh." It has always been a great temptation to me to write "English"


underneath, but I have resisted that so far and I have described myself as "British."

Mr. Osbert Peake: What will the right hon. Gentleman write in the visitors' book in the future? Will he write, "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"?

Mr. Ede: No. I shall write "British."

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not for a moment implying that there is anything degrading in describing oneself as "Welsh"?

Mr. Ede: No. I have pointed out that even the original British, as I understand they are, appear somehow or other not to like to describe themselves as that now. There are people inside this Commonwealth of Nations to whom the words "British subject" do not have quite the connotation that they have with us. Therefore, we have found it necessary in this Measure to make arrangements whereby they can describe themselves by a term to which they not merely have no objection but which they welcome. In order to be able to do that it is necessary that the people for whom this House legislates should accept inside the Commonwealth the position of citizenship of a particular unit of the Commonwealth. Therefore, we have decided as a result of these deliberations and conferences that the appropriate term for the people for whom this House legislates is that in the first place of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
I do not share the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in some way or other the geographical sundering of the people included in this title invalidates it. I believe that the people who in the old days were described as Roman citizens in fact belonged to cities that were severed by seas in the days when sea probably divided people more than it does now. Saul of Tarsus was proud to be a Roman citizen but, as far as I know—[Interruption.] The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will have an opportunity later. I think that at times Saul of Tarsus was severed from Rome certainly by as much distance in time as many people who will be included in this category. It is a great recognition on our part of the responsibility we feel for the

care, the nurture and the advancement of colonial peoples that we should include them in the same citizenship with ourselves. I cannot myself think that there will be other than acceptance of that position by these people.
The real effect of the Amendments made in another place was that the people of the United Kingdom and Colonies entered the family of British nationality, as it were, by prescriptive right. Other people entered through the door of the citizenship of one of the Dominions. We cannot have the equality of all the nations in the British Commonwealth of Nations if we adhere to that view. Therefore, what we suggest is that the people of this country and of the Colonies should be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and that, through that gateway, they should enter into British subjecthood or into Commonwealth citizenship, whichever term they may prefer. I assure the Committee that contrary to what was said in certain parts of the House on the last occasion, this matter has been the subject of the most careful consideration by His Majesty's Governments in all parts of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions. I know that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) apparently does not think very much of any of the Governments—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am making a note of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Ede: Of course, it is unfortunate for him that this country has ceased to be the most reactionary of all the parts of the Commonwealth. One can perhaps understand the attitude that he adopted towards these other Governments, but we believe that every one of them is as inspired by a desire for the maintenance of the traditions and the power of the British Commonwealth of Nations as are the people of this country, irrespective of party. With so great a cloud of witnesses in support of our Amendment, which we propose in order to restore the Bill to its original shape, I commend this Amendment, and those that hang upon it, to the Committee.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has done me the honour of restating and considering the points which


I ventured to advance on this matter, and I shall try, as fairly and squarely as I can, to meet the points put before the Committee. I should like first to deal with the first basis of this Amendment—the creation of a citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies—and then touch upon its second limb, the assumption of citizenship existing in each of the nine Dominions.
On the first point, I want to answer the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that citizenship should be equated with an area of sovereignty. I suggest that it must always be equated with some homogeneity and some true community of interest and status. The position from which one cannot get away is that the new citizenship creates a legal category for the inhabitants of these islands which does not correspond to any division of the Commonwealth. The new category is only a verbal residue to cover what is left when we have subtracted the citizens of each of the Dominions. It has no further justification in logic or in any other relevant aspect, and it does not describe any sense of community.
May I put it quite simply, and in a way in which I think hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee must look at it if they are to consider the matter in its true perspective? Every citizen of this country, every inhabitant of these islands, has one pride in being British in the ordinary sense. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with these national refinements, one of which I am very proud to hold, but, broadly, I could speak for myself as a Scot, my hon. Friend as a Welshman and my other hon. Friends from the other island behind me, when I say that we have the first pride in being British in that insular sense. The second pride which I think we all share is in being one of the family of a great Commonwealth and Empire whose solidarity is expressed in the allegiance to the Crown.
These two things are beyond dispute for practically every inhabitant of these islands, but what he has not got—and, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, this is the point which he has not met—what the ordinary citizen has not got is a feeling which gives him a special unity with the inhabitants of a Colony and excludes from that special

unity his first cousin in a Dominion, with whom he may have played in his grandfather's house. That is the concept which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify in this special citizenship. It is one which is inclusive of certain British but exclusive of others on what I suggest to the Committee is a completely illogical basis. I still think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to consider that point, because until it is considered we get into a stage of artificiality run mad.
I do not want to recall the unpleasant experiences of nearly 30 years ago and to think of the days when I used to have to pass examinations in Roman history by disputing very deeply the right hon. Gentleman's analogy from Rome, but, as he did make the point, I think it is fair to remind him that that was a creeping assimilation of citizenship which gradually became greater as the Roman territories grew.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): No, no, no.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say "No, no, no," even three times as often, but it still will not alter the facts of Roman history, which are that citizenship was first of all confined to the Romans of the Seven Hills, later extended to Latin States, and at a later period to the whole of Italy and then to the islands, and, at a comparatively late stage of Roman history, extended to those settlements in Spain and afterwards to their conquests in the Near East to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving his recital of Roman history for the purposes of drawing a comparison between Roman conditions and British conditions?

4.15 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. As he at once saw, I was making the contrast. That is a quite different course of historical development from the course of our own Commonwealth and Empire, in which, as was pointed out on the last occasion, we have a process of decentralised trusteeship gradually improving the standard of life in the different parts. I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for


underlining the point I was endeavouring to make, and that is the difference which I will draw. That is my first point—that there can be no justification in making this grouping, which is opposed to the insular group, opposed to the Commonwealth group and has no homogeneity or logical existence in itself.
The second point, which I make in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to me on maintaining the metropolitan tradition, can be put very shortly in these words. It is wrong to invent the machinery of discrimination when we avowedly do not seek to discriminate. The right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman beside him, have both most strongly disavowed any intention to discriminate by inventing this new citizenship. Why, then, I say—and I would suggest that it is a not unreasonable approach to the matter—are they inventing the machinery of discrimination? Up to now, I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, the operative nationality has been British, but now the operative nationality is going to be the colonial citizenship, and the citizen of the Dominion, for example, Canada, becomes under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme a class of British subject with special privileges, namely, whatever the Dominion Government care to give him. In the United Kingdom, there is no point in creating that special citizenship, and so there is no point in this Amendment, unless we are going to give privileges for a special citizenship more novel than those given to other classes of British subjects.
The Attorney-General said in the course of his speech on Second Reading—and he was careful to say "as the law stands at present"—that the Measure did not deprive the Australian, for example, of his existing rights, and he expressed a pious wish, which I heartily endorse, that we shall continue to accord to noncitizens—people who have not this new citizenship—the same rights as citizens. If that is the point of view of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, why invent the machinery which can be used in order to give special privileges, and to put them in a special position, as the corresponding class is put in a special position, in each of the Dominions? Why should we invent the machinery of discrimination? I say that there is no reason to do so, that we can proceed on the present well tried lines. If it is intended

to mean nothing, as the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have said—if it is not intended to put the new citizen in any better position, that is an excellent reason for not having that machinery and for not proceeding with this Amendment.
The third point which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to stress today was that these proposals were not designed and not intended to affect the strength of the fact of allegiance to the Crown, and I think that the Attorney-General said the same on the previous occasion when we debated this Bill. I am sure everyone is glad to hear that confession of intention. But if that be so—and I have just indicated that they do not intend that this new citizenship should give any special rights—why, for no purpose, substitute the new citizenship for allegiance as the basis of nationality as it has existed for this country and the Colonies up to now? I want to make it clear that neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has suggested, and none of us on this side of the Committee has for a moment had in mind, that the British Parliament should attempt to lay down the law for any Dominion or for anyone who is not recognised as being within its responsibility. The British Parliament is laying down the law as to what persons in this country are regarded as British subjects. That does not affect the Dominions, because equally any Dominion Parliament may lay down the law as to what persons by its law shall be regarded as British subjects in its country. We do not challenge that right, but just because we do not challenge that right, we say we are equally free to exercise a similar right in regard to our own country, and that is what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is no virtue whatsoever in having a common practice in this matter throughout the countries of the Commonwealth? Does he think the Commonwealth is unified by having a different system in each country?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to consider the matter a little more deeply. This was thoroughly discussed in the preliminary stages on the Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman will find that I dealt with that point, and the Home Secretary and I have been


anxious to keep the discussion today to this Clause, as far as possible. As the hon. Gentleman has put the point to me, I do not want to appear to dodge the answer in any way. It is this: I am saying, let us leave to every Dominion the right to decide the criteria for establishing its own citizenship. That is what this Bill does, and the hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that. By this Bill, the Dominions and this country are expressly empowered and are contemplated to take what steps they like for admission to their own citizenship.

Mr. Wyatt: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the contrary, he has completely misunderstood the Bill. The hon. Gentleman really must try to grasp that essential matter—that what the Government are putting forward and what he is purporting to support, is that each Dominion and the United Kingdom and the Colonies should establish their own gateway built in a manner which they alone decide, by which the citizen will come into the other stage. It is on that very basis that I am saying that our gateway should be the well-tried gateway of British subjecthood as it has existed. I do not mind whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that a strictly verbal unity is desirable in itself, as he seems to do, but I do not think that, in deference to a strictly verbal unity, we ought to create this artificiality which has no existence in common sense, and which can only, as I say, be a potential agent of discrimination. When I see a potential agent of discrimination, I try to get it out of the way, even if it does for a moment militate against the hon. Gentleman's slightly finnicky and pettifogging desire for correctitude, if he will allow me to say so without offence. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman provoked that outburst, because it has taken some of the time, but still I think he will consider that a lesson to him is one of the highest purposes to which anyone in the Committee can devote his time.
If I may for a moment pass from the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) to my next point, the Home Secretary mentioned that I had said, as I still say, that the introduction of citizenship in this way is contrary to the general flow of what has been a largely bi-partisan Colonial policy.

I think anyone who listened, as I did, to a great deal of the Debate on Colonial Affairs the other day must have been struck, especially in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and the Under-Secretary who replied, by the great measure of general agreement that there was as to the stream of development. I say—and I put it again to the right hon. Gentleman for serious consideration—that that has been a stream of development based on decentralised trusteeship. I do not want to go into details, because, if the right hon. Gentleman will remember, I did somewhat elaborate this point on the Second Reading, and I am anxious not to take up the time of the Committee. I also say that with the millions of our fellow subjects who have still a considerable way to go, as we all admit—and I say that in no carping spirit, but we know that that is the state of things—the personal loyalty to the Throne is something which we cannot under-estimate and which we ought not to ignore.
4.30 p.m.
So much for the right hon. Gentleman's first group of points, with a little assistance from the hon. Member for Aston. On the next point, the right hon. Gentleman has reinforced his statement on the agreement that he has obtained from the Dominions by an account—of course, by permission—of a discussion with the Prime Minister of Australia whose presence here is such a pleasure to everyone in this Committee. I want the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to appreciate our difficulty, because I think the Attorney-General somewhat misunderstood an approach of mine in the course of my speech on the Second Reading. The last thing I had in mind was that these matters should be judged as if one were dealing with a legal agreement and the only reason I made reference to that—as I did, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall—was for this purpose. If there is no justification on ordinary grounds, the Government might purport to have a justification if they said, "We are bound to the Dominions to introduce this legislation." That was why I drew attention to the very tentative wording of paragraph 6 of the White Paper, which showed quite clearly that we are not bound to anything specific. That was the sense in which I desired to use the argument and


I am sure the Attorney-General will appreciate that.
I would remind the Home Secretary that the way he put it last time was:
We have reason to believe that it commands the support and adherence of each of the other Governments of the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 391.]
The Attorney-General said:
As I indicated, it is not for me to say whether or not other sovereign legislatures of the Commonwealth will deal with this matter by legislation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948: Vol. 453, c. 499.]
He went on to say:
I can say that we have no reason whatever to doubt that legislation will be passed in the other Commonwealth countries and that it will be passed without delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 499.]
It seemed fair from that to suppose that the actual form of the legislation had not been a matter of agreement, and I must remind the Home Secretary that we have not heard that there have been communications from the Dominion Governments—I do not think he said so, but if that is the case let him correct me at once—stating that Clause 1 will be passed by them or indicating that the present form of Clause 1 was a condition precedent to legislation.
That is one important point, and the other point is that no one has ever suggested in the Debate, so far as I can find that any Dominion country has objected to our keeping nationality of the United Kingdom and the Colonies on the basis of allegiance. Unless I am wrong on that point, then the other ground for the support of this Amendment disappears and it really comes to this: that the present form of the Bill would not change the position of the Dominions or would not in any way lessen the conception of complete freedom which we all concede is theirs, but it would mean that we should be putting the Bill in a well-tried form and not in a form which may lead to discrimination in the future and which certainly provides the machinery of discrimination. For those reasons I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Crawley: I support the Amendment, but I should like to make two small suggestions in addition. I would have put down Amendments to the Amendment, but I think they would have

involved a good many consequential Amendments. If I can persuade my right hon. Friend and the Committee that they are worth considering between now and the Report stage, I will willingly work out the Amendments which would be necessary.
I support the Amendment, as far as it goes, because, as I said on Second Reading, the idea of citizenship sums up the essence of the ties which bind the Commonwealth; the common attitude towards the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship is surely the thing which all members of the Commonwealth have at heart. Where it seems that the Clause as it now stands blurs that idea is the point, which has been made, where we include people of the Colonies as citizens of the United Kingdom. I think many people on both sides of the Committee feel there is too great an appearance of uniformity in that. If we could find a form of words to get round it and yet retain the difference between the genus of British subjects which the Bill tries to establish and the species, we may make it clearer. The wording I should like to suggest is that the first two lines of Clause 1 should read:
Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom or of a Colony. …
and then read on. It seems to me that although any citizen of a Colony is, of course, a British subject and therefore has rights as a British subject, those rights are in the vast majority of cases fairly theoretical. It is perfectly true that a pagan from Eastern Nigeria, who could not speak any language other than his own and was entirely illiterate, who lands in this country tomorrow, could stand for Parliament and theoretically could be elected, but it is equally obvious that he would, in fact, have to undergo a fairly long course of education before he would be able to discharge the responsibilities of British citizenship. On the other hand, the whole of our policy in all the Colonies is to encourage that very man, in his own surroundings and in his own language, to understand the obligations of citizenship, not of the United Kingdom but of Nigeria, and I should have thought that was an action to expand in the right way the species of citizenship we are establishing by this Bill.
I have been told there are legal objections, but I cannot see what the legal


objections could be. It cannot surely he argued by the Government that to let the people in the Colonies call themselves citizens of the Colony is an encouragement to agitation. It is obviously exactly the reverse. A sense of citizenship is the essence of what we are trying to develop in the Colonies. If it is suggested that because they are dependent on us we must, somehow, find a form of words which implies that dependence, I suggest that the fact that a citizen of Nigeria who is a colonial, must, because he is a colonial, be a British subject, is all that is necessary in law. I suggest therefore that line 8 should read "citizen of the United Kingdom or of a Colony." That is my first suggestion.
The other suggestion I put forward with diffidence, because I know a great deal of thought has already gone into it. It has to do with the use of the word "citizen" in Subsection (2), which says:
as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen.
As was remarked by the Lord Chancellor in another place, the use of the word "citizen" there does blur the genus and the species we are trying to establish in this Bill. We are trying to make citizenship a gateway by which people become British subjects. We now say they are citizens of Australia or Canada and then, if they like to call themselves so, citizens of the Commonwealth, and that does largely detract from the idea of the genus and the species. I wonder if the word "member" would not do the job instead. Supposing it read "or as a member of the Commonwealth" instead of "Commonwealth citizen," would not that convey what we are trying to convey?
It may be argued that it is too wide a word and it may also be argued that members of the Commonwealth are the States themselves. I do not really think there ever would be a case where one was confused in what was meant in talking of member States—after all, there are member States of the United States, member States of the Soviet Union.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 7, or are we having, under the guise of a Debate of that particular point, a discussion upon the broad differences between the Government and the Opposition covering the

whole Bill? If we are having the latter, it seems to me that what we are now listening to is in Order, and that, indeed, that may be the more convenient way of running the discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): We are having a general discussion on Clause 1.

Mr. Brown: I may raise the question of Ireland then?

Mr. Crawley: Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Beaumont, made it clear at the beginning of the Debate that there was to be a general Debate on Clause 1.

The Attorney-General: I think that what was suggested was that we should have a general Debate on the first three Subsections of Clause 1 which cover very largely the principle underlying this Bill, and that we should then have a further Debate upon the special position dealt with in Subsection (4). I think that that is what was intended. The position of Eire does give rise to quite special considerations not affecting the matter we have hitherto canvassed.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are having a general Debate on the first three Amendments to Clause 1.

Mr. Crawley: I am suggesting that the term "membership of the Commonwealth" does, in fact, convey just the sort of relationship which our general status as members of the Commonwealth is to aoquire. It has been said that there will be an increasing number of members of the Commonwealth who do not feel themselves to be British and who object to the word "subject." There will be more and more members of the Commonwealth in the future who think of themselves, not as British subjects, but as subjects of the King, and primarily as Indian subjects of the King, or Canadian subjects of the King, and so on. I suggest, therefore, that the word "membership," which does convey an idea of obligation in all sorts of different kinds of association, would be the right word to use, and that it would allow the new ideas which have to be expressed in this Bill to be included in the Bill.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Having listened very care-full both to the Home Secretary today and to the Attorney-General when he


wound up the Debate on Second Reading, I am still wholly at a loss to understand why the Government are proposing the first Amendment. The argument put forward very frequently today, and put forward frequently in the course of the Debate on Second Reading, is that the Dominions of course must enjoy absolute equality of status. Nobody questions that. That is common ground in every section of the Committee. What the Government have to show is that equality of status must involve identity of name. Even if we assume that there has to be what the Government conveniently call—or what it may be convenient to refer to as—"citizenship" defined for each particular section of the Commonwealth, and that the status of British subject in the Government's view is a secondary consequence—even then there is no reason why each separate Dominion should give the same name under its own local Act for what the Government call the gateway to entry into British subject-hood.
4.45 p.m.
I gave as an example on Second Reading the form that the Act of Parliament in New Zealand, if there is an Act, might conceivably take. It might start off quite easily, without destroying the scheme of the Bill at all, "Every person who under this Act is a British subject of New Zealand—" The Attorney-General was good enough in reply to the Debate on Second Reading to say—and, of course, I accept it from him—that he had no reason to think that the Dominion of New Zealand would do that. But the point I put forward is that it is quite obvious that, if the Dominion of New Zealand elected to do that, it would be clearly acting fully within its rights and it would clearly not destroy the scheme of this Bill in any way.

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quite certain that he has something to say?

Mr. Hughes: Would it not be nonsense to suggest that a person would be a British subject of New Zealand? British subjects are British subjects, and British subjects are subjects of the King, and the idea of citizenship is an entirely different subject.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen into so many muddles

that I think it would be better if he developed his point, if any, when he comes to make his intervention in the Debate, and that I should not detain the Committee unduly long by replying to him. I still put it to the Government, and I would put it to the hon. and learned Member to try to think over, that if New Zealand did elect to start its Measure with the words "Every person who under this Act is a British subject of New Zealand"—New Zealand would be acting completely within its rights, and that an Act so framed would not destroy the scheme underlying this Bill.
What we are now choosing is simply this: what name, under our legislation, and exercising our own rights, we should give to our own citizens. Here, if there were any reasons to call ourselves "citizens," I agree with hon. Members in many parts of the Committee, that it is not in itself in any way a dishonourable title. I only say that we happen to prefer and to be content with the term "British subject." Here I will quote the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General, in winding up the Debate on Second Reading, said about the term "British subject":
The term 'British subject' is unfortunately not universally accepted, partly for sentimental reasons and partly, I think, owing to logical reasons. That is a pity. For our own part we want nothing better. We are proud to describe ourselves as 'British subjects.' We regard that term as the hallmark, the emblem, the very badge of liberty—and a liberty which we intend to preserve"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 502.]
Those are the the Attorney-General's words describing our own satisfaction with the term "British subject." Under this subsection of this Clause of this Bill we are discussing only what we are going to call those who are British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We are not discussing the title of anyone else. Anybody else can call himself anything he likes. It is quite clear that it does not destroy any scheme whatsoever of the Bill, or anything that has been the subject of negotiations with other Dominions, if we use the title that at present appears in the Bill. As the Attorney-General has said, we are quite content with that title.
I listened in vain during the speech of the Home Secretary today for him to give any reason for proposing this Amendment, having regard to the considerations to which I have just drawn attention. I


was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because I thought he was very wise to correct the history of the Attorney-General. He attributed the phrase, "civis Romanus sum," rightly to Saul of Tarsus and not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did on Second Reading, to Cicero. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Cicero could say "civis Romanus sum." No doubt he could, but history does not record that in fact he did.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Cicero used the phrase in his famous speech "Pro Archia."

Mr. Strauss: No doubt the Attorney-General will be very grateful indeed for the help which he has received from a slightly unexpected quarter, and, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to adopt the argument of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), I personally shall be delighted. Here we have a phrase which is undoubtedly popular here. In the United Kingdom we see nothing wrong with the term "British subject." The Attorney-General—I have quoted his words—sees nothing wrong with it either. The Home Secretary sees nothing wrong with it. It in no way destroys the scheme of the Bill. If we leave this clause in its present form, everything which the Government seek to achieve will be achieved, and we shall have adopted the title which we prefer. The Home Secretary constantly maintained that his case was equality of status between all the Dominions. This we concede to the full, but there is no reason whatsoever why equality of status should mean identity of name.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: I do not want to detain the Committee very long on this Amendment, but I wish to take up some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and also the points dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), which, I think, are largely covered by the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby. We must try to find some phrase which correctly describes the position we are facing, for a change in description must take place. The term "British subject,"

which applied to all members of the British Commonwealth in years gone by, is no longer a term which can be made to apply in the first instance to all members of the British Commonwealth. The Canadians say "We do not want to be that first; we are Canadian citizens first and British subjects second." The Canadian Act of 1946 did not start that development; it really began with the Act of 1920. We had a conference of experts on this matter in 1947 and previously a Prime Ministers' Conference. They agreed that a new position had to be taken up with regard to the way in which we describe members of the Commonwealth for each of the respective Dominions, including the United Kingdom, as a Dominion, and members of the Commonwealth for the whole area of the Commonwealth. Whereas in days gone by we had one phrase or word for both cases, we are no longer in that position today.
Let me take the three points which the right hon. and learned Member made. It is important that we should try to come to an issue on the points raised. He took up the question that citizenship implies homogeneity and common interests, and he pointed out that in the past we all had a pride in being British and that we are all of one family. That is perfectly true. But now some of the members of the family have decided that they want to specify their identity by the place where they reside and not by the fact of their inheritance. That is why the word "citizen" has come up to be applied. This deals with the question of the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities when he gave the example of New Zealand. One can make the assumptions given in the example, just as one can say that the moon may fall and hit the sun tomorrow, but it is not something that is going to happen. This illustrates the fact and the extent to which in the Commonwealth, if we are to get common legislation then it has to be agreed legislation. I am not dealing with the colonial aspect at this moment, for that is different from the question of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there can be no justification for this grouping of people together because we are not dealing with either an island or a


Commonwealth when we take as our territory the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

Mr. H. Strauss: Is the hon. Member passing from the point I made? He may be quite right when he says that the Dominion of New Zealand is not going to do what he said it is not going to do. The point I put was that if it did, it would in no way wreck the scheme laid down by this Bill.

Mr. Mackay: So tar as we can determine we know what the Dominion is going to do, for there has been a conference for the purpose of deciding what is to be done in each Dominion. Previously there was a conference which resulted in the British Nationality Act, 1914, which in the main was applied in every Dominion in a way which carried out the arrangements made. If the Dominion of New Zealand used the term "British subject," it would break the whole conception of this Bill completely.
At the moment, we have to decide whether we are to have two phrases to describe the different people of the British Commonwealth of Nations or one. Up to 1935 or 1940, or up to the Statute of Westminster there is no doubt that there was only one. We were all British subjects whether we were born in Australia, Canada or New Zealand. Now there are two levels. On one level there are Canadian citizens, Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens, and citizens of India, of Pakistan and of Ceylon. That is one level, and the sum of this gives us the second level and makes up a British subject. At the moment the people of the United Kingdom are occupying a different position in this new arrangement. The Opposition are trying to get them on a second tier when they have to be on the first tier first, and from the first tier they can pass to the second.
We are in this position: there is an area of 12 parts; eleven break away to call themselves citizens of different kinds and, having done that, we in the United Kingdom are left with a position on the old level. Eleven countries take on the title of citizenship as the first way in which they are to be described, and the people of the United Kingdom are still calling themselves British subjects. But that is now going to be a term which applies to the other eleven on the second level. It

is a wider term than Canadian citizen or New Zealand citizen as the case may be. "British subject" embraces all people in the Commonwealth. It cannot be confined to the people in this island for whom we need a new name. I think that we have to face this position. I accept the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that citizenship implies a certain amount of homogeneity.

Mr. John Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under Clause 12 there is a category of willing subjects without citizenship? Is that one tier instead of two?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Mackay: I appreciate that. It is one of the anomalies which this difficult problem of nationality gives rise to, but it does not get away from the fundamental point that 99 per cent. of the United Kingdom has been covered by the new definition.
I want to deal with the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to—this problem of homogeneity and the fact that we desire to be British subjects. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to face the fact that now that the Dominions have grown up in the way they have, the conception of citizenship or subjecthood, whatever name is used to describe the nationality of the people of these islands, has to be changed in consequence, and that is the natural result of the fact that we are trying to keep together in our Commonwealth a whole lot of people who are completely separate with individual Governments. The right hon. Gentleman said that there is no need to invent machinery for discrimination when we do not want discrimination. Why have machinery to discriminate at all? Then he said that in the case of Canada there was a legal discrimination because they wanted it and in the case of Australia a legal discrimination because they wanted it. He asked why we should create citizenship of the United Kingdom when we do not want it. I accept the basis of that argument, but we should realise that we are not in a position to do that because the other Dominions do not want us to do that. They do not want us to be only British subjects, but they want to be (a) Canadians first and (b) British subjects after. They ask us to alter our law in order that we should be United Kingdom citizens first and then


British subjects so that all the peoples in the Commonwealth shall all be in the same position.
I hesitate to put this point, because I may overstate it, but hon. Members and people living in this country have to realise that if we are going on with the conception of the Commonwealth as it has developed we have to change our attitude on many of these matters. One may say that it is a "dog in the manger" attitude, but the Dominions want us in this island to be in the same sort of category, definition and position as they are. We cannot be the only people called British subjects because the term is wider than the term "Canadian citizen." We must be a citizen of some kind first.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Will the hon. Member deal with the point—he came to the well but did not drink the water—about homogeneity? Does he really say that an Australian, Canadian, New Zealander, or South African would want us to be placed in this artificial citizenship, which may be discriminatory and has no logical basis?

Mr. Mackay: I think he does, and I say that quite sincerely.

Dr. Morgan: What is the position of the ordinary inhabitant of a colony? What position does he take up, that of a citizen here, or a position vis-à-vis the Dominions?

Mr. Mackay: With respect, I will leave that for a moment. I wish to deal with the matter, but I do not want to confuse the issue of homogeneity with the colonies. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby for having put the point in a categorical and clear way because that is the position I am trying to put to the Committee. People in the Dominions resent people in this country trying to be more British than they are. I think the New Zealander for instance is probably a much more British person than many people in the United Kingdom. In the development of the Commonwealth they wish to be Canadian or Australian citizens. It is fair to say that probably some of the other Dominions have been forced into the position by Canada. Of course India and Pakistan came into being after the conference of experts and it

would be misleading to say that they were pressed into taking this attitude, although it is obvious that it would be one of the ways in which they would be kept in the Commonwealth and this Bill has an important part to play in that process.
The Canadian, having taken the line that he wants to be a Canadian citizen and a British subject, says—perhaps quite unfairly, but this is the sort of anomaly that arises in this flexible organisation where there is no common Parliament—"In this arrangement, if there is to be a Canadian citizen and if we are to be British subjects you must adopt a new name, because you are not the only people who are to be British subjects."

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the hon. Member stating this as a fact? Did it come out of debate on the Canadian Bill?

Mr. Mackay: I am not stating it as a matter of fact, but as a matter of argument and a matter of what I think is the opinion of many people in the Dominions who raised this question at the conference of experts. I think it represents the feeling of the Dominions at the conference. It is an enormous pity that we have not the reports which went back to all the Dominions' Parliaments. If we had those reports, we would know much better where we were. We should like to know what resolutions were passed and what individual Governments proposed as Canada was taking up citizenship and there were to be two descriptions. These are things on which we should have information, but on which we have no information. I should not like to mislead the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) into thinking I was stating facts; I am stating things as I see them.
It is asked why we should invent machinery of discrimination in this country and why we should bother to do it. My reply is that the Dominions are asking us to do so and they say, "You have no right to the term 'British subject' on your own. We have a right to use it, but as a secondary description. We do not want you to use it as a primary description, but as a secondary description. The primary description for us is a Canadian subject. You must be a citizen of the United Kingdom. That being so, it is for you as part of the team to come down from the superior position you have


occupied because you have been the country from which British subjects have gone out, and you must realise that there is a need for discrimination. In the future we wish to be on the same level of description or described in both categories as United Kingdom citizens would be."
The right hon. and learned Member argued that it was for the Dominions to say what they liked in their determination of the form they would apply and they had a right to decide for themselves the nature and form of their citizenship. Here again the same sort of problem arises and if the basis of the argument I am putting is accepted it follows that we must change the name given to the people of this country. The question of the colonies is a separate matter. I ask hon. Members to face the fact that we cannot throw off responsibility. If we build up an Empire we have to shoulder responsibilities. I could give a quotation on that subject, either a Latin quotation or a Greek quotation, but I shall not do so, lest I attribute it to the wrong person.
We cannot throw off responsibilities. It may be that in shedding some of our Empire we have done the right thing; I think we have. But the colonial territories are part of the domestic concern of the United Kingdom and they cannot be separated from it. When they become self-governing independent states they can be given a citizenship and a name by which to describe themselves. But, until that happens, they are in the position of being British subjects as much as people ill this country. If because of Commonwealth relationships it is necessary to change the names of British subjects into United Kingdom and British subjects that must in logic apply to Colonial peoples as well. It would not be fair or right to the colonial peoples to give them the right of citizenship qua their own country until we arrive at the time when they are to have full Dominion status. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, dealing with this whole question is his original speech on the Second Reading, said:
We stand by the present form, that is 'British subject,' with the addition of the words 'of the United Kingdom and Colonies.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 409.]
I appreciate the point that if the expression "United Kingdom British subject" is to be used it will be applied to the Colonies as well as to the United

Kingdom. It is because of the term "citizen" that objection is raised to using that word for the Colonial peoples.
There again, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is facing the facts, or the changed position in which we find ourselves. I do not think that many hon. Members are facing the fact that the Dominions are taking the attitude which they are taking, and that the United Kingdom has to revise her position, to shrink if you like—that is what it is, in a sense—in name which must be used for her own description. We cannot desert or run away from the Colonies when we are adopting our new name or title. They must stay in the same position as the people of this country. For that reason, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment, which I think is an enormous step forward in the development of the whole Commonwealth.
For ten years I have listened in this country to people who often do not realise what the implications of the term Commonwealth are. Many people have for long given lip service to the idea of the Commonwealth and have talked of the Commonwealth as a great conception, without realising all the implications and the obligations upon the people of this country. We have to recognise the growing pains as well as the changed position of the Dominions. For the first time, the Dominions are saying: "In order that we can have the individual status that we want for ourselves, the old country will have to change hers." That is a concession which is being rightly given, and it will do an enormous amount to cement the bonds of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I think my hon. Friend said that the Dominions were expecting this country to give up the expression "British subject" and that we must no longer have a monopoly of it. How does he reconcile that statement with subsection (2) of the Clause?

Mr. Mackay: I do not think that is so. People in this country do not sufficiently understand that the word "subject" is resented in other parts of the Commonwealth, such as in India and Pakistan. The provisions of the Bill on this point have been put in to overcome that resentment. There are people in the Dominions


who want to be called British subjects as their second description. There are others who do not want to be so called at all, but are quite prepared to be called-Commonwealth subjects. The alternatives are put into the Bill in order to give to the people of the Commonwealth a secondary description which they may care to choose.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I am rather surprised that such a good Commonwealth man as the hon. Member for North-west Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) should have apparently mistaken the important principle of the Statute of Westminster that this House and this Parliament have as much right to legislate for our own people and those dependent upon us as the Parliaments in the Dominions have to legislate for themselves. I cannot think that any people in the Dominions whose right we acknowledge to call themselves, for example, Canadian citizens, in the first place, and Commonwealth citizens or British subjects in the second place, would in any way resent the people of this country calling themselves British subjects and, in the second place, either Commonwealth citizens or British citizens. It does not seem to me to make sense. I hope in all seriousness—because we respect his general knowledge and attitude towards Commonwealth affairs—that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he said in the light of those remarks.
On an occasion like this, when the delicate relationships of the Commonwealth are being discussed, it is good for us to attempt to find out what it is that both sides of the Committee are trying to achieve. Obviously we are trying to legislate for our own people and the British Colonies. We declare the right of our Dominions to legislate for their own peoples. About that there is no disagreement on either side of the Committee.

The Attorney-General: I would not like it to be thought for a moment that we are doing anything of the kind. That was done a long time ago. Hon. Members opposite do not always recognise it.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps the word "declare" was wrong. Implicit in whatever law we may pass on this occasion is an acknowledgement of the rights of the Dominions to legislate for themselves.

In co-operation with the Dominions, now or hereafter according to the result of the Bill, we shall be determining the wider status inclusive of the Dominions, the Colonies and the United Kingdom. As to that wider status there appears to be no dispute. Indeed, it is already in the Bill both as amended in another place and as it will be if the Government Amendments are passed. The double expression of that wider status is in "Commonwealth citizen" and "British subject." There is no dispute about that.
The dispute between the Opposition and the Government on this occasion really narrows down to a question of the expression which is to be used for the description of people who are members of the populations of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. With all respect, I do ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that the controversy between us is of that very narrow character, when they are considering the merits of this matter. With regard to which expression should be used, I have carefully read and re-read the speeches of both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have listened carefully to the Home Secretary today. I cannot find any positive evidence from either of those speeches that there is an overwhelming desire in this country or in the Colonies for the change which is proposed by the Government. We have not had any evidence from the Government that Governors or Prime Ministers of the partly self-governing Colonies have been consulted and have expressed views about this matter. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends has whispered to me that I am not right about that.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is certainly wrong. My right hon. Friend said, and I said not once, not twice, but many times, and in fact it has been repeated today, that this matter was the subject of a conference between the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth countries, and that that conference was followed by a conference of their experts, who reported to them on the matter. Indeed, my right hon. Friend went even further today and said that only in the course of the last few days the Prime Minister of Australia had indicated that they were going ahead with legislation on those common lines.

Mr. Renton: We may be at cross purposes. I do not dispute that the Dominion Prime Ministers and the Dominion experts have expressed their views in conjunction with the Government. I am saying that we have no positive evidence that the Colonial Governors or Prime Ministers, of places like Kenya, shall we say, were brought into such discussions. If the Attorney-General's expression "Governments of the Commonwealth" includes the Governments of the Colonies, then I must withdraw what I said, but I did not understand it to do so.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is quite right. It did not include them, and it was not meant to include them. My recollection is—and I have not read my speech since—that I said, and I certainly intended to say what has been said more than once in another place, that every Governor of every Colony had been fully consulted, and all the Governors were unanimously in agreement with the scheme involved in this Bill.

Mr. Renton: That is certainly information we need to know, and which I, for one, did not understand from the speeches which have been made. That being so, I must confess that it causes me to some extent to modify the view I am expressing, but, nevertheless, I seriously wonder whether this issue has been put in a very full way to the Governors of the Colonies. It would be interesting to know the terms upon which any question on this matter was framed. It would be interesting to know whether the full implications of their answers were really understood by them, and whether they realised at the time they gave their answers that as a result of any evidence collected from their answers the whole conception of allegiance to the Crown, which is a vital matter in the government of the Colonies and is well understood by the native people, would undergo a superficial change. I think we should know these things, bearing in mind that the controversy between the two sides here is a narrow one, and that it is to a very large extent on this very question.
So far as the people of this country are concerned—and their views are not unimportant in this matter—we should bear in mind that there has never been any opportunity to put the matter to them. I do not recollect this matter being

raised at the last General Election; it is unlikely it would have been raised because the controversy arose over the Canadian Act, 1946. I do not think there has been a very great opportunity since this Bill was first introduced in another place for Members to go round to their constituents and to tell them that the proposition is that they are to be called "citizens" instead of being called "subjects," as they have always been willing to be called, and which the Government realise they are willing to be called. In the absence of strong reasons that the people of this country wish for a change of the kind proposed, I suggest that we should not on this occasion impose this change upon them.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: When I came here this afternoon I was rather hoping that I should be convinced by the Home Secretary as to the rightness of his attitude in this matter, but I regret to say that I am far from convinced. I do not regard this in any sense as a party matter. I do not think anyone would wish to do so, or should do so. We have to look at this thing objectively and form our own opinions on it. Although I am still very ready to be convinced, and I hope the Attorney-General will convince me on certain matters I am going to raise, I have been extremely worried about the form of this Bill and by the Debates which have taken place on it in another place. There are certain question marks in my mind. It has been said that we must legislate, and I think it is said in general that we must legislate because Canada legislated, and that we must legislate according to a certain formula because a rather obscure conference of experts laid down this formula.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) went a little further just now and suggested that the other Dominions were expecting us to legislate, and to do so exactly on these lines. I cannot accept or swallow all of that. I cannot think that we have to be dictated to by any conference of experts, even if they reached unanimity. I know all the old Dominions and their peoples fairly intimately, and I cannot accept that they or their representatives would say, or are likely to have said to us, that we must accept this two-tiered system. Nor do I think there is any weight in the suggestion that we must get


this thing tidied up and have it according to a neat pattern. We just do not run an empire or international arrangements and agreements in that way, and certainly our attitude to the Empire has, I am glad to say, never been in that form, and I hope it never will be.
The fact is that we were told constantly in another place that we have to get this thing tidied up. If tidying up means forcing a thing to conform to a formula which many of us believe to be extremely unwise, I hope that we shall leave the thing very untidy. It seems strange to me that the Government, having apparently got this scheme from the experts quite a long time ago—the conference was held over a year ago now—should now suddenly bring in this new factor, that is Clause 1 (2) which was introduced only after the Bill had been brought into the House of Lords. It seems extremely strange that into a cut-and-dried scheme agreed to by all parties we should bring in this alternative expression "Commonwealth citizen" to "British subject." If we are looking for a neat and tidy scheme, that certainly makes it extremely untidy.
The Home Secretary talked about having blurred the lines of the agreement, and certainly I think that Subsection blurs the thing very considerably. The scheme was that citizen was the species and subject the genus, and now for the genus we have either subject or citizen. If anything is a blur, that certainly is. Section 26 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1945, states:
A Canadian citizen is a British subject.
Under this new arrangement, they could have said that a Canadian citizen is a Commonwealth citizen, and when New Zealand legislates, it may well be that according to this latest formula, which confuses the whole issue, she will legislate that a New Zealand citizen is a Commonwealth citizen, which not only seems an extraordinary jingle but gets us nowhere. That Subsection has blurred the whole issue. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) made a valid point when he said we have no guarantee at all that New Zealand will adopt this expression "citizen of New Zealand." We are told it is unlikely not to be the case, but we must envisage the possibility that they will not do that at all, but may use some

other expression in regard to British subjects in New Zealand. If they do that, under the Bill as it now stands, when they come to this country they will not be British subjects at all, and they will not be recognised.

The Attorney-General: Certainly they will.

Mr. Chamberlain: Not under the Bill as originally introduced.

The Attorney-General: indicated dissent

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Chamberlain: I have no doubt that the Attorney-General will reply to this point later, but my reading of it—and I think it is accurate—is that the person would have to be a "citizen" of New Zealand before he could be accepted here as a British subject. If, instead, he is a "British subject in New Zealand" he would not be recognised as a British subject here. I agree with the -view put forward in certain quarters—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went, and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Merchant Shipping Act, 1948.
2. Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
3. Employment and Training Act, 1948.
4. Agricultural Wages Act, 1948.
5. Public Works Loans Act, 1948.
6. Warwick Corporation Act, 1948.
7. Cromer Urban District Council Act, 1948.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Amendment proposed: In page 1 line 7, leave out "British subject" and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Question again proposed, "That the words 'British subject' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. Chamberlain: I was just calling attention to certain characteristics on the expression "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," which I think is a rather regrettable one. It has been pointed out, and quite rightly, that it is really a residual expression. After the other parts of the Commonwealth have been dealt with, these two have to be linked together because there is nothing else that can be done about it. It is extremely artificial, and I and many others know the Colonies intimately enough to know that the idea of citizenship means little or nothing to them, whereas the idea of "British subject" means a lot, indeed practically everything. The proposed expression is a very heterogeneous and artificial expression, and indeed rather an unfortunate one because if there is one thing which those who live in the Colonies want to avoid, it is any suggestion of a tie-up with Whitehall or Downing Street. They may exaggerate the danger and difficulties of such a thing but it is very real.
5.45 p.m.
I was speaking the other day to the Secretary of the Nigerian Trade Union Congress and he expressed that view very forcibly—"A link a connection, yes, but a tie-up, no." It seems to me that there is far too much of a tie-up in this Bill. Furthermore, the very term "Colonies" will be out-of-date before very long, in my view. Already those who live in the Colonies object to being called Colonials. It is regrettable that in this Bill we are perpetuating an expression which will, I think, within five or ten years be out-of-date and in many ways will be anathema to those who live in the Colonies.
I feel very strongly that the attitude which should have been adopted in this matter is that this old country should have kept the door wide open all the time for British subjects from the whole Commonwealth. I do not believe it is necessary to have the two-tier system in this country. I do not believe that the Dominions are more or less forcing our hand in this direction. I should have liked to see in this Bill the situation that any member of the Commonwealth became a recognised British subject immediately he set foot in this country.
By these arrangements in the Bill there will now be a situation that if someone comes from the West Indies or Nigeria

he is a recognised citizen of this country immediately, but if someone comes from Australia or Canada it is not so. He has to serve a probationary 12 months before he can become a citizen of the United Kingdom. That is all wrong. The Attorney-General says that is not so but I think he is quite wrong. There is no doubt at all. It is clear, and I invite him to contradict my statement, that someone coming from Nigeria is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies directly he sets foot in this country, and he is recognised as such immediately, but that some one coming from Australia is not recognised in that way. He is on a lower plane, and much though we esteem and value our friends in the Colonies, we surely do not want to put them on a different and higher plane in this matter to our brothers and sisters in the Dominions.
Similarly, I put it to the Attorney-General that if a British citizen marries a Maltese wife she is immediately a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is recognised as such. If, on the other hand, he marries an Australian that is not so, she has got to apply to be registered as such. In each case he brings his wife into this country, but the Maltese wife is in a preferential position compared with the Australian wife. I invite the Attorney-General to deny that. If that is the case, both being estimable people, why put one on a different level from the other?
Those are the points I wanted to put. I do not see any reason for forcing upon us in this country the two-tier system. Surely the status of British citizen in the old Mother Country, with the door wide open for every one in the Commonwealth, should be enough. If the Dominions want to put an additional gateway, an additional condition, we do not quarrel with that. But we do quarrel with the idea that they should seek or even be said to force such a two-tier system or such an additional gateway upon this country.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am in a little difficulty because we have heard so much about status today. In considering that you and I, Major Milner, are equal in status, because your superiority is of course wholly sessile, I am left almost wondering whether we ought not to start addressing the occupant


of the Chair, whoever it may be, as "Citizen." It is perfectly certain, I think, that where there is excessive concern about status, freedom is almost always in danger. I do not always know exactly what status means. We know what a Minister with Cabinet status means. It means a Minister they will not have in the Cabinet, but who is paid as if they would. All the excessive emphasis upon identity or equality of status is really likely to land us in more harm than good.
I should like to begin if I may—I shall not in all be long—by asking the Attorney-General because he has been if I may say so without impertinence or sycophancy extremely determined in sitting through us all, and in case there might arise a moment soon when refreshment becomes indispensable, I begin therefore with a couple of specific points addressed rather to him, and hope I may be allowed to be a little more general later. One of my specific points is this. Suppose when this is in operation that His Majesty's Government in South Africa disfranchises any class, say, Indians—I do not mean merely disfranchises them from voting for Parliament but disfranchises them in the Roman law sense, declares them not to be citizens—and suppose they then come, or even without needing to suppose that, they come, to this country, do they or do they not thereupon, upon South African disfranchisement, become citizens of the United-Kingdom-and-Colonies? I think they do.

The Attorney-General: indicated assent.

Mr. Pickthorn: I cannot believe that was in contemplation. If it was in contemplation, I think it should have been explained to us on Second Reading that we are now putting it in the power of a Dominion by legislating any large class of its inhabitants out of its citizenship to put them, so to speak, without our consent into our citizenship. That seems a very odd result of excessive pursuit of equality of, status, and I think that there ought to be some explanation of it and probably some change in this Bill. I am bound to say that if the Attorney-General now tells us, as he just has, by physical indications if not by articulate speech, that that was understood all

along, it was part of the duty of the Treasury bench to explain it on Second Reading.
My second specific point to the Treasury bench is upon the point about discrimination. We have been told more than once from the Treasury bench that erecting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) called "machinery for discrimination" was not in any contemplation of any actual discrimination. I think that is fair, that we have been told that by both the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill more than once. But I really do not understand how they reconcile that with Clause 5 and with the provision for Dominion citizens to acquire the citizenship of the United-Kingdom-and-Colonies, invisibly hyphened. If there is nothing here to acquire, if there is to be no sort of discrimination, what is there in that citizenship to acquire for which we have to provide the machinery? I think it quite plain that there must be in contemplation—I do not mean in definite and positive intention as for legislation in the next Session or something of that kind—but there must be in contemplation discrimination, and that the machinery of discrimination, therefore, is not merely machinery in vacuo.
I want to say something a little more general about the language which is the exact topic of our discussion here. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) is not in his place. I think I understood his speech. His speech, if I could boil it down fairly, amounted to saying that the word "British" must not be used for people overseas because there were an awful lot of people overseas who did not like it, and, on the other hand, neither must it be used for us because there were an awful lot of people overseas—I think, the same people; at any rate, over-lapping classes of people—who liked it too much to be willing to see us using it. I think that is not at all a parody of his argument. I found it quite impossible to follow that or to see how it was compatible with this country and this House preserving any kind of control of its own destinies. Of course, if there are to be five, six, 10—I think about—different States all under the same allegiance, all with legislatures more or less omnicompetent, it is perfectly plain that the only chance for the maintenance


of any reality connecting those States together as distinct from the rest of the world, any chance of that happening must depend upon their all treating each other with consideration and endeavouring to be in step with each other. That is quite plain, but it is also plain that that must be done from all sides. It must be done from more than one point of view at a time.
I still do not understand what we have been told about consultation—the Prime Ministers' Conference, the conference at the official level, and all that. I still do not understand how all that is really compatible with any kind of nation of democracy.

Mr. J. Foster: My hon. Friend said "nation." Surely, he means "notion" of democracy?

Mr. Pickthorn: Did I say that? I am sorry, I meant "notion of democracy." We here represent directly some 50 million people and indirectly in the Colonies provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill—I forget how many more—it may be another 30 million or 40 million. At any rate, the population represented directly or indirectly by this Parliament is much greater than the population represented by the Canadian or the New Zealand or any other Dominion Government. Therefore, if there were to be any kind of democracy in what we are now doing, it was, therefore, necessary that Members of this House and of another place and those whom we represent should have been fully seized of what was intended and desired, what was possible and impossible, in time for discussion, and in time for influence to be brought by those who might then have discussed it and made up their minds.
But that is not in the least what has happened. What has happened has been that there has been a Prime Ministers' Conference. I have forgotten the date of that. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was in 1946."] In 1946, was it? Then there was an official conference, and then the Canadian Parliament legislated. And now we are told that we must legislate in the same way as the Canadian Parliament, and this afternoon we were told that the Prime Minister of Australia, knowing presumably that the Bill was past its Second Reading—I do not say he would not have spoken if he had not known—

has said that they intend to legislate in the same way.
At what point then could it possibly have been—since the argument has been put before us that we must take this Bill with little or no Amendment because of relations with the Dominions—that is what has been put before us—at what point of time were we ever at which any British citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies could by any means affect this legislation? There never was any such point of time—never. That is a very odd effect of the extreme democratic theories of hon. Gentlemen opposite—a very odd effect indeed—and I think it has the effect of making us see that this Clause, which is the operative Clause of the Bill, and particularly these words here, which in themselves are not perhaps very operative but which go to the whole root of the nature of the way we are approaching the matter, form reason in itself enough why the Government should not be given this Amendment.
Then I think there are other reasons too. I do not apologise for being to some extent rather vague in what I am going to say next. [Interruption.] No, I do not think so. I think that was no doubt intended to be an unfriendly piece of facetiousness. What I have said so far has had no doubt all sorts of faults but I do not think it has been vague; but if there is any dubiety on the Treasury Bench, I will be willing to give way to have it put to me to make clear. In what I now approach there must necessarily be a certain amount of vagueness because these matters are very largely matters of ambiguous words and very largely indeed matters of feelings about words.
The main matter which we are now debating under the guidance from the Chair is not strictly the matter of the first Amendment but the main matter is really the choice between the notion of allegiance and subjecthood on the one side and citizenship and legislation on the other, as the root of loyalty. I think that is what the whole Debate has been about all this afternoon and I think it cannot be denied that the Government's Amendment is intended to strengthen the citizenship and legislation view of what makes full membership—rights and duties; to strengthen that view, as against the view of allegiance and subjecthood and tradition as being the roots that matter.
6.0 p.m.
Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider—I tried to put this in a different way on the Second Reading—I would ask them to bear with a quotation from Latin, and I will give them a probably incorrect translation afterwards—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am thinking more of my own bad qualities than of any want of learning there may be on the Treasury Bench. This is the phrase:
Jam non consilio bonus, sed more eo perductus, ut non tantum recte facere possim, sed nisi recte facere non possim.
[An HON. MEMBER: "Jolly good speech."] I do not know where it comes from, but this is roughly what it means—and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite, although I know that Latin is now always regarded as slightly funny—when I was a history lecturer if one mentioned the word "beer" one always got a hearty laugh—I beg them to see the serious point there is in this. The words mean something like this:
Good not by dint of thinking it out, but led thereto by habit, so that not only I can do the right thing but, unless rightly, I cannot act at all.
That is, I think, peculiarly applicable to a man's relation with the State to which he owes allegiance. The essence of any hope of keeping the thing straight is that people should act rightly in relation to their country because their habit of mind—and the habit of mind of everybody they respect—all the books they have been taught from, all the people they have been brought up among—is such that other ways of behaving towards their country do not occur to them.
I believe that if you once let go of that and, most especially, if you let go of that in this kind of multi-national looseness which we call the Commonwealth, I believe that if you let go of that, you will never get hold of it again; and, apart from all the technique of this highly technical Clause, it is beyond dispute that what the Government are asking today is, as I said just now, to let go of the traditional matter-of-course notion of allegiance and strengthen the notion of citizenship as a matter of legislation and of separate identifiable consent from generation to generation.
I believe that those are reasons why this Amendment should be resisted, and

I am glad to know that we shall have at least two with us from the other side of the Committee, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has made it plain that he is on our side. Though I was not quite clear why, I am all for it—

Mr. R. Chamberlain: rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: Do not tell me why again. All I want to know is that the hon. Member is on our side. I will give way in a second. Also the hon. and learned Gentleman from North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes)—

Mr. Hector Hughes: No, I am not on your side.

Mr. Pickthorn: That surprises me very much because the hon. and learned Gentleman from Aberdeen—he is learned and he has read the Clause, all the Clause I have no doubt—went out of his way to interrupt an hon. and learned Friend of mine—

Mr. Hughes: To show how wrong he was in his argument.

Mr. Pickthorn: Exactly. In order to explain that one could not have such a thing as a British subject of New Zealand. Under this Bill one has to have a British subject, or be capable of having under this Clause, a British subject of all sorts of places. Those are at least two hon. Members we shall have in the Lobby with us tonight.

Dr. Morgan: I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his rather peculiar, confused crinkum-crankum, as they used to call it in the old days. It is a sort of decorative eloquence which really means nothing. It sounds rather learned, as if the hon. Member were addressing a history class at Cambridge, but it is really hermaphroditic—neither one thing nor the other.
In the five minutes during which I have promised to speak, I wish to raise again the question of the Colonies and Colonial subjects with regard to this Bill. I have already asked it, in an interruption to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) last time, and I ask it again. This is a very intricate Bill dealing with a very intricate subject. The


Dominions have a perfect right to settle the status of their own citizens and inhabitants. Great Britain has a certain rule of citizenship in this country and we have a right to maintain it. I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) that there must be changes, as the world has a new orientation, to give the Dominions the right to decide things and make civic laws for themselves.
I again point out the fact that the British Commonwealth, consisting of its Colonial Empire, has a series of intricate problems dealing with the Colonies. Ceylon is a Dominion. Jamaica, much bigger, is self-governed but is not a Dominion. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have a right, as Dominions, to bar certain British subjects from entering into those Dominions. That is not depriving them of their British citizenship; they still have that right. If they have that right, under this Bill the reverse does not happen. Supposing Ceylon and Jamaica were federated, they would not have the right to bar South Africans or Canadians or anyone from the other Dominions from entering their Colonies. The hon. Gentleman talked about disfranchising citizens, but we do that constantly in our Colonies; there are British subjects of the King in our Colonies who have never had the vote. Disfranchising the citizen does not necessarily mean that he does not still retain his rights as a British citizen.
I ask the Attorney-General to explain again the position of the British colonial subject vis-à-vis his freedom and his right as a British citizen, having regard to this Bill and the right of the Dominions to settle their civic status. For instance, will a colonial from the West Indies—federated or not, with self-government or just an ordinary Colony—still have the right of travelling to say, South Africa, and asking for the right of British citizenship there, whether it is given in two tiers or one tier—I see some right hon. Members and hon. Members on the Front Bench are laughing. It may seem very funny. They are probably new in a political career, but I have been long enough in politics not to laugh at a serious topic because, if we affect colonial subjecthood now, there may be riots and burnings and incendiarism in those Colonies, to our detriment. I ask right

hon. Members and hon. Members on the Front Bench not to laugh at problems of this kind, which are very serious from the point of view of the Government and of citizenship in the Colonies, and I ask the Attorney-General to devote at least a few minutes to elucidating that point.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: This discussion has travelled far since the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) sought to argue, as I think he did, that this Amendment would destroy the historical basis of British nationality, the conception of allegiance. It is easy enough to make certain criticisms of this Amendment and to say that the description "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" is a clumsy phrase; that it is a pity that Members of Parliament did not have an earlier opportunity of knowing that discussions were going on between representatives of the Dominions; and that the terminology has become confused by reason of the fact that the genus is now to be known either as a "British subject" or as a "Commonwealth citizen." It is easy enough to make those criticisms. There are certain things in common, however, between all Members of the Committee: first, that the House can only bind the United Kingdom and the Colonies. We all accept that we have no jurisdiction over or any legislative competence within any of the Commonwealth countries. The second thing in common is the desirability, so far as is possible, of preserving a common status or a common nationality for the members of every Commonwealth country, including the United Kingdom and her Colonies. I think those things are in common.
What has been missing from the Opposition's criticism is any practical suggestion of how to carry out the idea of a common designation or a common conception for the Commonwealth as a whole, except by the method proposed by the Bill. It is not true to say that, if we designate members of the United Kingdom and Colonies as "citizens "rather than as" British subjects," we shall thereby destroy the conception of allegiance to the Crown. That allegiance still remains, and persons who become "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies"—for example, by naturalisation—still have to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Once Canada had passed her Canadian Citizenship Act


prescribing a separate Canadian citizenship, I think that any Government in the United Kingdom was forced to face that fact. We were forced, not to adopt any conception of "United Kingdom citizenship," but to recognise the problem that henceforward different Dominions would legislate and develop their own independent ideas of citizenship; and that, if we did nothing about it, if we preserved the designation "British subject" for this United Kingdom alone, the danger, was that, in course of time, that designation would be lost altogether as a designation for all the members of the Commonwealth. That is the real fallacy of the Opposition's argument.
By keeping in the Bill the designation for members of the United Kingdom and Colonies, by retaining the designation "British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies," we thereby make it more improbable that the various Commonwealth countries will regard their citizens as British subjects. There is grave danger in driving the conception of "British subject" to embrace merely the people of this island and the Colonies. We are far more likely to get the whole of the Commonwealth marching in step if we say we will call members of each individual self-governing community "citizens;" and if, being partners, being great States with trust and confidence in one another, we then say, "In the case of every member of the Commonwealth that calls its people 'citizens' we will admit all those people to the common conception of 'British subject.'" Whether by accident or by design, there is a great conception behind this Bill, a conception which can contribute a great deal to the development of the ideal of the British Commonwealth. My colleagues and I, therefore, will support the Government.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: The issue on this Amendment is whether we should introduce what the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) has called a two-tier system or a one-tier system. In other words, the Bill as it stands says that the United Kingdom and the Colonies should merely have the description "British subject," and the Government Amendment seeks to introduce two classes, one of a "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" and then,

on top of that, the "British subject." First, I should like to question the proposition of the hon. Member for North-West Hull that there is a strong desire in the Dominions that we should adopt a two-tier system although it does not make any difference to us. I think that by implication he admitted there was no difference between a "British subject" and a "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen," because he did not meet the point of the questions from this side as to what the difference was.

Mr. R. Mackay: May I interrupt the hon. Member to make the matter clear. The difference is that "British" covers the whole Commonwealth—some 50 million of this island, some 60 million in the Colonies and some 300 or 400 million within the Dominions. The term "British subject" covers them all, but the term "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" applies only to the 60 million colonial people and the 50 million of this island. The term "Canadian citizen" applies only to the 12 million of Canada, so that the term "citizen" is limited geographically to the individual countries, whereas the term "British subject" now will apply to the whole amalgamation of all parts of the Commonwealth and Colonies.

Mr. Foster: I understand that, but I still do not think the hon. Member has explained why the 60 million people in the Colonies, who are British subjects anyway, must divide themselves into two classes. I think he recalled the argument of the Home Secretary that in doing so we should be interfering with the Dominions.
Let us consider for a moment the classes of persons who will become "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" on the passing of the Act, which I think will show that, by accepting the Amendment, we shall be interfering with the Dominions. It is not generally realised that, if the Bill is passed as amended, "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" will consist, first, of people born in the United Kingdom and Colonies; secondly, the sons or daughters of fathers possessing that qualification. It will consist also of persons born in territories annexed to the United Kingdom and Colonies. But, "United Kingdom and Colonies citizen" will comprise also people in the Dominions


such as—hypothetically—Indians who are not admitted to South African citizenship and who are not citizens of India. It will also admit, as United Kingdom and Colonies citizens, without any application on their part, married women in, let us say, Australia or Canada who, because of the law of citizenship passed in that country, are not admitted to Canadian or Australian citizenship.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) referred, although he did not make it clear to the Committee, to persons who already enjoy the privilege of being British subjects and, as subjects, British citizens. He has not made it clear that these are transitional provisions designed to ensure that nobody who is a British subject today, is deprived of that status by this Bill.

Mr. Foster: I agree with that object. Obviously, nobody who is now a British subject should be deprived of that right. But why does the Bill get into the difficulty of interfering in the South African Dominion and saying—this is purely hypothetical—"Although your Citizenship Bill deprives the Indians in South Africa of South African status and, therefore, according to your law, of British subjecthood, we are interfering and saying you cannot do that." That is a clash which the Government need never have encountered. If they left the Indians in South Africa and the peoples in the United Kingdom as British subjects, none of their troubles would arise.
True, it is transitional, but the hon. Member for North-West Hull described it as superior, as setting ourselves apart. Well, I ask him: is it not setting ourselves apart to pick out people in the Dominions to remain British subjects against the wording of their citizenship law? Suppose the situation is reversed, and suppose the Dominion of Australia in its citizenship law said, "We do not approve of the provision by which an alien who marries a British subject does not become a British subject so we, Australia, say that any alien who marries a British subject in any part of the other Dominions shall be a citizen of Australia." We find that, although now a German woman who marries a citizen of the United Kingdom would not, on that hypothesis, become a citizen of the United Kingdom by marriage, and would not, therefore, become a British subject through United Kingdom citizen-

ship, she would, because of the Australian citizenship law, be a citizen of Australia. Now, in reverse, that is all we are doing in this Bill, and it seems to me that the very inference about which the Home Secretary is complaining—an inference with whose object I agree—is achieved by this Bill.
The Attorney-General said that the Government do not want anybody who is a British subject now to lose his subject-hood. I agree with that. But because the only way of obtaining British subject-hood after this Bill is passed as amended will be through citizenship, those people who lose their citizenship in the Dominions will have to be made artificially United Kingdom citizens, so that they may preserve their subjecthood. That is contained in Clauses 11 and 12. That seems to me very artificial, and, in effect, wrong from a Commonwealth point of view, because by doing that, we are interfering in the affairs of the Dominions. We are, in effect, saying, "Although you are quite independent, and can disfranchise your Indians in South Africa and remove their subjecthood, we do not approve of it." That is not the way to do it, and it only raises all those problems which hon. Gentlemen opposite have anticipated as clearly pulling the Commonwealth apart.
As we want to be the country which saves these people's British subjecthood, we should save them by letting them remain British subjects, and not by having two classes in this country; then the disfranchised Indians in South Africa remain British subjects by our law, we are British subjects here, and we do not have to make them artificially citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the whole issue. This Amendment is not to substitute the term "citizen" for "British subject," but to leave out "British subject" of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Surely, his argument is beside the point.

Mr. Foster: I think, with respect, that the hon. Member is wrong. The object of this Amendment is to leave out "British subject" and to insert "citizen."

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the hon. Member look in the Bill at the words immediately folowing "British subject"?—"of the United Kingdom and Colonies."

Mr. Foster: But if the word "subject" is altered it makes it "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and what I am complaining about—I think the issue has been joined on this, and I notice the hon. Member for North-West Hull nodding his head—is that the object of this Amendment is to create a special class of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies." Until now, as the Bill stands the 60 million people in the United Kingdom and Colonies will stay British subjects, and will not be "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." By this argument I was trying to meet the views expressed by hon. Members opposite, that not to accept this Amendment would be to interfere with the Dominions.
There is one other respect in which I should have thought that the artificial creation of "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens" was rather inappropriate. This is not so important, but the Committee will notice that under the Bill all persons born in a Protectorate or protected State are made United Kingdom and Colonies citizens. The argument in favour of retaining British subjecthood for only the United Kingdom and Colonies is that it is artificial to term these people "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens." I do not think that a protected State, such as, say, Johore, will relish being taken out of its protected state and put into the Colonies. To be logical, the term should be "citizen of the United Kingdom, Colonies, protected States and Protectorates." The protected States are, in their view, different from Colonies. I do not say they are in any way superior, but they are different; and after this Bill is passed persons born in a Protectorate or protected State will be known as "United Kingdom and Colonies citizens." I should have thought that, again, showed the objection to creating an artificial class in this country.
I was glad that the Home Secretary did not today support the reasons for the change in this Bill on the grounds of his previous insinuation during Second Reading, that there was some colour prejudice for opposing this Amendment. I thought that on Second Reading he did himself less than justice by insinuating that opposition—which was probably from this side—was due to colour prejudice, and I feel that he ought really to withdraw that at some stage. If he looks at his Second

Reading speech he will see that he said one of the reasons for opposing the creation of this class of United Kingdom and Colonies citizen was on the ground of a colour prejudice. I hope he will take an opportunity of saying he did not mean that.

Mr. Ede: Since the hon. Gentleman says that, I am very gratified that in this Committee there has been no suggestion of that kind, and I willingly pay that testimony to the speeches made on the opposite side of the Committee. But in the previous discussion in and around the Bill there have been used phrases which indicated that some people did object on those lines. The hon. Member will realise, however, that I was speaking before anyone else in this Committee had spoken; and when there was a demur from the other side of the Committee, I thought I indicated that I accepted the point of view that those interruptions expressed for hon. Members of this Committee.

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman says he accepted it, but I think he did so rather grudgingly; he said that the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) had evidently given up some reactionary views. I do not think that was a very gracious way of saying that we on this side in no sense had any colour prejudice. It was not very charitable, and it was not very fair, to impute colour prejudice to this side. I do not think the Home Secretary retracted it on Second Reading in a very gracious manner; I am sorry; but if he reads it I think he will see it.
The other argument advanced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading was, that if we did not make the people of the Colonies citizens, we should be retarding their advancement; we should be opposing the idea that they were equal with us. Well, of course, it is nothing of the sort. At the present moment they are British subjects; they are equal with us; they can come to this country—even if it is distasteful to the Minister of Labour—and get jobs here; they are entirely equal in this country. It will not make them any more equal, or advance their status, by making them United Kingdom and Colonies citizens.
6.30 p.m.
Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General to deal with the point as to whether he


considers the creation of this class of United Kingdom-Colony citizens of various complexions in the Dominions is not really an instance of interfering in the Dominions. We are very anxious that nobody should lose their British subject-hood if they do not want to. On the principles enunciated by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, it does not fall to us any more than to Australia, Canada or South Africa to say that people are subject to it through legislating for them, but we can achieve that object by remaining as we are. If we do not want to remain as we are, the logical way out of it is to leave the matter to the good sense and moral principles of the Dominions, who have a moral duty not to pass a citizenship law which deprives the people who have been born there or lived there for a long time of their British subject-hood.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sure the Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) for raising the discussion to the practical plane on which it was opened by the Home Secretary and taking it away from the vague and metaphysical propositions put to it in the course of the argument since. I have two quite practical propositions to put to the Committee, but before doing so I should like to say a word about what was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and his attack on the Attorney-General for attributing the phrase "civis Romanus sum" to Cicero. The hon. Member for the Combined Universities suggested that it should have been attributed to Paul of Tarsus, and I think I am right in saying it was used by both these people.

Mr. Ede: Surely it was Saul of Tarsus.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I accept the correction. When the hon. and learned Member goes back to the Combined Universities he will find that it was used by Cicero in his speech "Pro Archia" when Cicero was trying to get Roman citizenship for that distinguished slave who was a famous poet of the time. He will find it in the famous speech.
The two practical points I wish to make are these. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities sought to argue—and I hope I am not doing him any

wrong in saying this—that it would be possible to be a British subject of New Zealand. I suggested in my interruption that that was quite impossible. That interruption was intended to make the point that one can be a subject of His Majesty the King but not a subject of a country. One can be a citizen of a country, and it would make nonsense of this Clause to read it in the way that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities said it ought to be read. If one looks at the Clause one sees these words, in Subsection (1):
Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall thereby have the status of a British subject.
That I suggest is nonsense, but the way the Clause will read if the Amendment is carried is:
Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
That I suggest is common sense and ought to be accepted by the Committee.
Much has been said about one-tier and two-tier systems. The one-tier system is obviously the system comprising subjects of His Majesty the King, which we find all over the British Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire. The two-tier system involves not only that greater outer ring of British subjects but also an inner ring of citizens of each particular Dominion. That two-tier system is one which has been accepted by all the Dominions which have citizens of their Dominion. It has a bearing upon our membership of the United Nations Organisation and upon our membership of the Court of International Justice, as indeed it had a bearing upon our membership of the League of Nations. That was very well brought out by Professor A. Berriedale Keith, the acknowledged authority on constitutional law who, in his book "The Sovereignty of the British Dominions" at page 64, dealt with this very point. Speaking of the development of internal sovereignty he said this:
Of even greater constitutional importance was the action first taken by Canada in defining within the broader circle of British subjects the narrow class of Canadian citizens. The term was first adopted for a limited purpose, that of immigration, when it was desired to make clear what persons were so connected with Canada as to be exempt from the provisions of the immigration legislation. But a wider use was rendered necessary by the


creation of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Under the statute of that body it is impossible for two nationals of one Power to be elected Judges; and as Canada, in virtue of its independent membership of the League of Nations, was also an independent member of the Court, it was necessary to secure that if a Canadian were elected he would not be refused a seat because a British member was already elected. Canadian nationality, therefore, is ascribed by an Act of 1921 to all Canadian citizens as defined in the Immigration Act, 1910 …
Again dealing with the Irish aspect of it, Professor Keith says:
The Irish Free State by its Constitution conferred citizenship on all persons domiciled in the Free State on the coming into force of the Constitution, if born there or in Northern Ireland or if either parent was born in Ireland, or if he had resided for seven years in the Free State.
Later on he says:
Though citizens of the Irish Free State still enjoy in the rest of the Empire the rights accorded to British subjects in general, political rights in the Free State are strictly limited to citizens of the Free State by the Constitution.
These are some practical applications of this difference between the idea of citizenship and the idea of being a subject of His Majesty the King. So we find that the admirable, cogent, lucid but unconvincing argument presented by the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) is not borne out by constitutional authorities. It is not recognised by any of the writers on the British Commonwealth of Nations whose works I consulted when writing my book on the Commonwealth, nor by practitioners in the constitutional law. We find the same line of argument running through the speeches of the present Premiers of the Dominions. The Home Secretary in opening referred to the views of the present Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Chifley. We find it also in the books of Professor Dicey; in the speeches and books of Field Marshal Smuts; and in the authoritative works of Dr. Nathan in South Africa. We also find it in every authoritative exposition of the constitutional law. I am sorry that the Opposition have taken this line in a matter of this kind, which should be a non-party matter.
This change, this advance, because it is an advance consonant with the ideas of all the Dominions, is an advance for the good of the Empire and the British Commonwealth of Nations as a whole.

It is evolved from the idea that each Dominion is supreme within its own borders. They determine what their citizenship shall be; we determine what our citzenship shall be, and it would be wrong to impose any shackle upon making the change and marking the progress which is adumbrated in this Bill. Therefore, I hope the House will take a non-party view of this and that all parties will vote for the change which the Home Secretary has proposed.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: This Debate today has made it even more difficult than it was on Second Reading for some hon. Members to make up their minds how to vote. I am impressed by what has been said by some hon. Members in regard to the curious position that will be created for some members of British Colonies if they find themselves in other Dominions. I see that point. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that the Bill, as amended in another place, really does not make much sense. In any case I think we ought to move out some of the words that have been put in. I am certain that it is our duty to keep in step with the great Dominions. I am not so interested in the Bill coming to pass as I am in the feeling which has led to the Bill.
What we must recognise is that all the member States of the British Commonwealth have an independent position. They have that position, and separate votes. They must be perfectly free to pass whatever legislation they like. The dilemma I am in is this. We cannot divest ourselves of our responsibility to all the people in the British Colonies. They are the responsibility of this House; this House sees to it that the Minister for the Colonies is responsible to this House, so that each one of us is responsible for the welfare of all the people in the Colonies.
I am not happy about it now because I begin to feel that we are rather premature in linking up the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. I should be entirely in favour of it, if I did not see that it was going to react adversely. If only the Attorney-General can convince me about that I shall have no doubt how I shall vote, but I am rather worried about it. I feel that the development of the Colonial Empire must go towards the


grouping of Colonies and their eventual emergence as Dominions. When that happens the situation is simple. They become the created citizens of Central Africa, West Africa, East Africa or the Caribbean and fit in perfectly with the picture now presented to us. But I am worried by this one factor, that by calling people in the Colonies "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" there may be some legislation in one of the Dominions which would have a detrimental effect on their position. It might lead to trouble between ourselves and that Dominion. I would like to be absolutely certain that in the discussion—with which I wholeheartedly agree—as a result of the meeting of Prime Ministers and the technical meeting, all these points about the position of members of a British Colony were discussed. In labour legislation or in trades union legislation, say, in the Union of South Africa, are they going to be given the same status and is it going to create all sorts of difficulties?
What I should like to see would be that we should retain the words "British subject" for everybody in the Colonies and retain our complete responsibility for their welfare, because we must avoid doing anything that would lead to complications between the United Kingdom and any of the Dominions.

Mr. Osbert Peake: We have had a full discussion on this Amendment. A great deal of it might have been avoided had the Government thought fit to publish the report of the conference of experts which assembled in London in February of last year. It is now 18 months since this conference reported, and it does seem an astonishing thing that we should be asked, in the British House of Commons, to make a complete and original departure from our existing conception of nationality law, the change being based upon a report which has never been published.
The Attorney-General, in replying on the Second Reading Debate, gave two reasons, which he said I should well appreciate, for the report never having been published. He said first of all:
This was a conference of officials. It is not usual to publish reports of conferences of that kind.
Is there any hon. Member of this House who has not seen on many occasions

reports published by the Government which merely consist of official reports. It is the commonest occurrence in the world for reports of inter-departmental committees to be made public. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Moreover, this was a conference which reported not only to us, but to all the Commonwealth countries. It was a joint report,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 499.]
That does not seem to me a good reason for not publishing the report. It is a good reason for securing the assent of the other parties to the publication of the report, but on a matter of such supreme importance it would have been a good thing if we had seen precisely what it was that this conference agreed upon, because there seems to have been a good deal of confusion surrounding that particular point.
Instead of that, instead of having the report published, and being able to show what resolutions were carried in the conference, what has happened has been this. At every stage of the Debates on this Bill, both in this House and in another place, Ministers have come forward from time to time with new statements as to whom they have seen, as to what Dominion statesman they have met, and have given us hearsay and piecemeal evidence of what that Dominion representative thought about the Bill. That is a very slipshod method in which to handle a matter of this degree of public importance. Even at this stage I do not know whether this Clause, the Amendment to which we are discussing, is, in fact, an agreed Clause. We were told in the White Paper that there was an agreed scheme. Of course there is an agreed scheme, and that we are all prepared to accept. But it has never been made clear, at any rate to me, whether the actual words of Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of this Bill have been the subject of agreement between us and the self-governing Dominions. I can hardly believe that the words of Clause 1 were agreed at the conference.

The Attorney-General: It might be for the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee if I pointed out that in the White Paper, which has now been in the possession of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman for some considerable time, at paragraph 8 it is stated:


Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the key clause, has been agreed with all the countries named in it.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I had overlooked that statement in the White Paper. That makes it all the more curious that the Government themselves should then have proceeded to amend Clause 1. They added Subsection (2) to Clause 1 during the progress of this Bill through another place.

The Attorney-General: It was stated quite clearly when that was done that it was with consent. It was done because certain other Dominions had come into existence which were not in existence at the time of the original agreement.

Mr. Peake: We have reached the position that between the introduction of this Bill, its Second Reading and its Committee stage in another place, an agreed Amendment has been made to Clause 1. Does it not seem incredible in those circumstances that it was impossible during the same period to secure the assent of the Dominions to the publication of the report of the conference upon which this Bill is based? Does not it seem equally incredible that the subject matter of this Amendment, which involves the substitution of the words "British subject" for the word "citizen," could not also have been referred to the Dominions since the introduction of the Bill in another place some three months ago? Have any communications passed with the Dominions upon whether this Amendment is or is not agreeable to the Dominions? That is a matter upon which the Committee might well be enlightened.
It would appear from what the right hon. Gentleman has stated that Clause 1 was agreed in terms on which the self-governing Dominions insisted—or that we agreed to the introduction of the term "citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." If we had desired to substitute for those words, the words "British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies," I cannot for the life of me imagine that any Dominion would have taken exception to that being done. In the course of the Second Reading Debate I said that this was a matter of phraseology, and so, in fact, it is. It is the question whether we use the word "citi-

zen" or the words "British subject" to describe those persons who live either in Great Britain or in the Colonies and who will not be embraced by any of the separate codes of nationality law being established in the self governing Dominions.
It is merely a matter of phraseology, but phraseology can be of immense importance. It is supremely important to get phraseology which, first and foremost, is acceptable, and which is apt and fitting in the second place. We can well understand the desire of persons who live in Canada to be able to say, first and foremost, "I am a Canadian" and, in the second place, "I am a British subject." The same may well apply to Australia and to the other Dominions, but I cannot imagine anybody saying, "I want, first and foremost, to be considered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies." I am sure that nobody would dream of putting forward such a view.
When I intervened in the course of the speech of the Home Secretary this afternoon, when he was telling us how he registered at hotels in some of the more outlying portions of the Kingdom, I asked how he would register in the future. He, quite frankly, said that he would continue, as hitherto, to register as a British subject. Of course we all shall. We shall have a choice. By virtue of our citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies we shall be British subjects, but I do not believe that anybody will put in the register, as an Australian might put, "I am an Australian" or a Canadian might put, "I am a Canadian"—I cannot conceive that anybody will enter the words "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he is entering his name in an hotel register, he is entering his nationality, not his citizenship. In nearly every case the heading of the column is "Nationality."

Mr. W. J. Brown: In any case, there would not be room for all those words.

Mr. Peake: In answer to the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), if the heading is "Nationality" then the correct thing to put in the hotel register is, "citizen of the


United Kingdom and Colonies," because the whole basis of the scheme is that every part of the Dominions is, for the future, to have its own nationality law. It is not a question, as one or two hon. Members have imagined, of us saying that we will have no gateway at all to the second tier, or the second stage, of being British subjects. It is only a question of what the gateway in our case shall be called. The word "citizen" is not one which we shall use in practice, nor is it a word that any of the subjects of His Majesty whom I know who are at present colonial subjects will use. It is not a word that they will want and it is not a word that they will use.
The argument against the use of the word "citizen" has been fairly fully deployed. The only argument in favour of it which I should like to demolish, as it is the only one which has not been demolished by anybody else, is the one used by the Attorney-General in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading. He was talking about the appropriateness of the term "citizen" in relation to the United Kingdom and the Colonies. He said:
It is said that citizenship is an inappropriate term to use in relation to what is geographically, socially and politically a rather heterogeneous community at varying stages of development. That involves a profound misconception both as to the nature of citizenship and as to our relations with the colonial peoples. Citizenship—I am using the term in its broad sense as opposed to municipal citizenship—is related to the territorial area and is (subject to the sovereignty of the area.) The area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same.

The Attorney-General: That report is not quite accurate, although I am not sure whether the inaccuracy has any relevance to the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. It will appear in a corrected form. What I think I said was:
Citizenship—I am using the term in its broad sense as opposed to municipal citizenship—is related to the territorial area which is subject to the same sovereignty.

Mr. Peake: I am not clear whether that makes any difference in the sense.

The Attorney-General: As the words stand at the moment, I do not think that they make any sense at all, but I hope that as altered they make a little sense.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged. The sentence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to which I wish to draw attention is:
The area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 503.]
That simply is not so under this Bill, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making a statement of that sort, showed a very profound ignorance of the British-protected persons who fall within the sovereignty of the Governors of so many of our West African Colonies. There are literally tens of millions of persons who fall within the area of sovereignty of British Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, in Aden and in other places, who will not be British citizens at all under this Bill, and who are not intended to be British citizens under this Bill. They are and they still remain nothing but British-protected persons. Therefore, it is not true to say that the area of sovereignty and of citizenship are the same.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) rather read the Bill on Second Reading as going to confer British citizenship on British-protected persons, but it was pointed out from the Government Front Bench that that was not the case.

Sir R. Glyn: They cease to be aliens.

Mr. Peake: It is true that they cease to be aliens for the purposes of the Aliens Act.
Neither the people of the United Kingdom, nor the people of Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Colonies have any desire to be labelled "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." They will not, in fact, use the phrase, and the phrase represents merely a sham and a delusion. They will have no citizenship in common, and, in practice, they will have no equality of rights and obligations, and the term "citizen" in relation to this vast area of the United Kingdom and the Colonies all agglomerated together is without any meaning of any sort or kind. We, therefore, feel strongly that the words "British subject" should be retained, because the legal effects will be precisely the same, and we are, therefore opposed to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We have had a discussion in relation to the first Clause the key Clause, of this Bill which has necessarily extended over a fairly wide field and which has inevitably involved traversing very much the same ground in regard to many matters that we had to examine on Second Reading. The Committee will bear with me if I, for my part, also have to traverse some of the matters which we discussed then, and if, perhaps, I have to repeat some of the things I then said.
The most notable characteristic of our discussion this afternoon is the complete failure of hon. Members opposite to recognise, still less to welcome, the real nature of the Commonwealth as a living organism which is flexible, which is adaptable, which is constantly re-adjusting its relationships, and the maintenance and strengthening of which depends, not on the United Kingdom ordering everybody to march by the right, but on all of us equally agreeing together that we will find some way of marching in step. If we are to go on building up this remarkable political organisation, on the future of which so much depends, we must in this country make our contribution where we can to finding means of keeping in step with the Legislatures of the other Commonwealth countries, and we must be prepared to accept the conclusions of the Commonwealth as a whole, as reached by their respective Governments or their Prime Ministers, rather than pursuing an independent and isolated course.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) made some complaint, as indeed he did on Second Reading, of the fact that we had not thought it right to publish the report of the experts who discussed the details of this matter in 1947. I must point out again, in regard to that, that agreement in principle was reached not in 1947 between experts, but in 1946 between the then Prime Ministers of all the Commonwealth countries. That was when the agreement in principle was reached. What happened in 1947 was that experts, under the direction of the several Prime Ministers, met here in London to work out in a little more detail the actual machinery of the new structure which the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had agreed to set up.
It has not been the practice in matters concerning Commonwealth relations—I am not dealing with the question of inter-Departmental Committees at all; we are on a much higher and wider plane here—it has not been the practice in connection with matters of Commonwealth relationships to publish the reports of conferences of that kind taking place at the expert level, nor, indeed, I think I am right in saying, and the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) will correct me if I am wrong, has it hitherto been the practice to publish in this country the detailed reasons which might have led Governments and Prime Ministers of each Commonwealth country to reach particular conclusions.
It is for the Government of each Commonwealth country to satisfy us own Legislature that the action which it is proposing to take is correct and is founded on proper reasons. So far as the Commonwealth countries are concerned, it is sufficient for us to say, as we did say at the earliest possible moment, when the White Paper was published, that all the Commonwealth countries are agreed upon the Clause which is now being discussed as the key Clause, the fundamental Clause, in this Bill.
Hon. Members opposite, not for the first time, seem to exhibit the qualities of the ostrich and persist in closing their eyes to the fact that, however reluctant we are—and it is natural that we should be reluctant—to change the form and structure of the Commonwealth to which we have been accustomed in the past in this matter, that structure, in relation to this matter of the common status is already breaking up and collapsing, if indeed it has not already collapsed. So long as the Dominions were Dominions in the strict sense, and so long as they were prepared to accept from the United Kingdom Parliament a common code enacted by this Parliament and adapted or applied by them, it was, of course, very simple, logical and convenient to make the status of nationality throughout the Commonwealth depend on the doctrine of allegiance to the King, but, once that conception of Empire in the strict sense, and of Dominion in the strict sense, has gone, some other agreed conception has to be put in its place, and it has to be an agreed conception if, in regard to this matter,


we are to continue to march in step with the other Commonwealth countries and to create a common basis for nationality and allegiance.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds was, of course, mistaken in confusing nationality and citizenship, and in saying, as he did to the hon. and learned Member on this side, that, if he were required to state his nationality, he could answer that he was a citizen. That is one of the fundamental misconceptions of which hon. Members opposite do not appear yet to have rid themselves.

Mr. Peake: Assuming the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be right on that point, what is the nationality of the persons in various parts of the Empire?

The Attorney-General: The nationality of the persons in the various parts of the Empire when this Bill is passed will be exactly what it is today. That is the fundamental purpose of this Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is the nationality of the persons in the different parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations today it only serves to illustrate the ignorance which appears to exist on the benches opposite in regard to the nature of our Commonwealth relations. They are British subjects.

Mr. Peake: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads Subsection (2) of this Clause he will see there that the terms "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" are made interchangeable. He is suggesting that I am wrong in saying that the term "citizen" can be used in describing a person's nationality, but under this Bill when it is passed anybody will be free to say "I am a Commonwealth citizen" when asked to state his nationality.

The Attorney-General: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that may be a very clever attempt to get out of the point which he made.

Mr. Peake: That is a complete answer.

The Attorney-General: It is not a complete answer. What the right hon. Gentleman said, as he will find if he takes the trouble to read his own speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, was that if a person was required to state his nationality in a British hotel he would be correct in saying, "I am a citizen of

the United Kingdom." That is not so. If one chose the alternative form which is provided in Clause 2 one would be entitled in future to call oneself a Commonwealth citizen. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman has not realised that that is an entirely different thing from being a citizen of the United Kingdom. That described the nationality, and the expression "Commonwealth citizen" is synonymous and interchangeable with the expression "British subject" which we use today and which I expect we shall always use in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the Attorney-General make this matter plain in terms that I can understand? Am I right in assuming that after we have passed this Bill a Scotsman will still be a Scotsman, a Welshman still a Welshman, an Irishman still an Irishman? May I also ask whether, although an Australian will be entitled to be described either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen, there is no manner of doubt whatever that he will still be an Australian?

The Attorney-General: I shall not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about any of those matters. If I pursued them I might find myself in very great racial difficulties.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Hitherto it has been customary to have nationalities stated on passports. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, if this Bill goes through with the Government Amendment, that passports of this country will have no reference to the United Kingdom and Colonies in describing nationality?

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether that has been settled or not, but if the passport is required to state the nationality of the person concerned it will undoubtedly have to say that he is a British subject; or, if it is preferred to use the other phrase, as it may be in certain Dominions, it will describe the person as a Commonwealth citizen. As far as we are concerned, I apprehend that we should stick to the phrase which we use now.
The difference between local citizenship and the nationality of each member of the Commonwealth is something which must of course, be appreciated, and which is fundamental to the whole structure of this


Bill. That structure involves the provision of a number of separate gates, as they are called, each of them controlled by each separate Dominion, through which people may pass to the common status of allegiance and nationality. In our law—and this, perhaps, is an answer the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)—one of the devices to which we have been driven, as a matter of fact, by the words "British subject," which are really in themselves not quite appropriate, is the use of the term "nationality" to denote the status of allegiance to the King. More strictly, I think it is intended to denote race and descent, but we use it to describe the common status of allegiance to the King.

Mr. J. Foster: rose—

The Attorney-General: I shall soon have to stop giving way, or I shall be getting into serious trouble with the Chair.

Mr. Foster: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Would he not agree that the nationality of a Canadian is described as such on his passport, and that it would be wrong and not sufficiently descriptive to describe him as a British subject? Therefore, when stating his nationality, to say "British subject" is not enough. A man must state his citizenship and nationality when he has one.

The Attorney-General: I could not say what is the practice with a Canadian passport, but I should not have thought that that was necessarily the case at all. I will come back to that point, but I should think that when one is travelling abroad or when one is appearing in a foreign law suit or during a time of war, it would not be very sensible or useful merely to describe one's citizenship; it should be enough to say, "I am a British subject." If I merely described my citizenship in the terms proposed by hon. Members opposite I should be liable to be asked, "Are you a British subject of Canada or of the Cameroons, or a British subject of Jersey or of Jamaica?" But, it is enough for me, and I hope it will always be enough for all who owe allegiance to His Majesty, as we all do under this Bill, to say that we are British subjects of His Majesty. That is the status which people will enjoy in international relations, and that is the status to which His Majesty,

through all his Governments, will give protection. That is as I understand the position in international law.
What hon. Members opposite have not fully appreciated is that the Bill must distinguish between persons whose nationality is to be determined by reference to the United Kingdom law, and those whose nationality has to be determined by reference to the law of Canada or Australia or one of the other Commonwealth countries. That distinction is necessary for determining not so much perhaps the present status of existing living British subjects, as the acquisition of British nationality by their descendants or by marriage or in circumstances in which they may be deprived of their British nationality. To say that a British subject is a British subject, as I think was said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn)—I do not want to use an offensive expression—is just nonsense. The status of a British subject is not a local status. That term describes the nationality and the allegiance of the person concerned, and he carries that nationality and allegiance with him wherever he may be, in all parts of the world.
There is no such thing as a British subject who is a British subject only in a local area or a British subject of some local area, and I hope there never will be, although there would be if this Bill was passed into law in the form in which hon. Members opposite desire it to be passed. British subjects are British subjects all over the world and in whatever part of the British Commonwealth of Nations they may happen to be. I am coming back to that point presently in connection with another matter which the hon. Member for Abingdon raised.
The point that I want to emphasise at this stage is that the status of a British subject is the common status which all members of the Commonwealth, of the Colonies or of the United Kingdom will enjoy and share together. The whole point of this Bill is not to alter that common status, that allegiance which we owe to the King, but to provide for the future how that common status—not the local status but the common status—shall be acquired.
We were forced to deal with this matter and provide new methods because the tottering edifice of the common code, which had been so much weakened by the


action—the quite proper and legitimate action; action they were fully entitled to take—of Australia and New Zealand in 1933 and of Ireland in 1935, had been completely destroyed when Canada passed her own citizenship laws in 1946. And we know today that Australia is following suit on exactly the same lines as we are adopting and, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that legislation of this kind has already been announced in the New Zealand Parliament. That was the position we had to face and the question was, what was to be done?
The Opposition have not really sought to present any real, alternative method. What is to take the place of the common code which is now disappearing? Is it not essential if the tradition—and it is, I agree, a very proud tradition—of a common family throughout the Commonwealth, the tradition of a single allegiance to a single King, is to be maintained, that we should not be content with each of us proceeding on our own way, allowing each Commonwealth country to legislate regardless of what was contemplated and intended to be done in the others, but that we should try, by agreement, to proceed upon the same lines?
I should have thought all hon. Members in this Committee would have felt it was wholly inimical to the progressive and close development of co-operation and understanding between the Commonwealth that we should insist in this country-on retaining what has been described 1-y the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) as the single-tier system, stepping straight into the status of British subject, regardless of citizenship, when the rest of the Dominions have desired and have agreed that the proper structure should be a two-tier structure, to nationality through citizenship—each Commonwealth country creating its own citizens and recognising, of course, the citizens of other Commonwealth countries as together sharing the same family name and the allegiance to the common Crown. That point was, if I may say so, very clearly and forcibly put by the hon. Member for North-West Hull who, I suppose, perhaps more than any of us, speaks with knowledge and experience of these Commonwealth matters.
Once we accept the scheme of the Bill it would be a grave error, if we have the

interests of the Commonwealth at heart, to seek to retain for our own local status a title which differs from that which we concede is a proper one for the Commonwealth, and which the Commonwealth countries desire to adopt. It would be folly for us to try—in what is, after all, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to some extent only a form of words—by the use of this particular form of words to suggest that we were putting ourselves on a special plane. I am certainly proud, as everybody is proud, to be a British subject, but I should be less proud of that description if it did not mean, and only mean, that status which I enjoyed and shared with all the other equal members of the equal Commonwealth of Nations.
When one starts to examine the thing in a little more detail, becomes a little more technical about it, the term "British subject" is not really an expression which is appropriate at all to designate the status of a person in relation to his rights and obligations in the society in which he lives—his political position. The words "British subject" denote the relationship between a man and his King. What word is there to describe the political status which results from such a relationship? "Subjection" obviously cannot be used. I see that some writer in a newspaper the other day was driven to use a horrible expression, which I had not come across before—"subjecthood."When one tries to find a noun appropriate to describe the status resulting from the personal relationship, one finds—I think this is right; hon. Members opposite have shown by their own Amendments to the Bill that it is right because they have used it in Clause 20—that the only word that is apt is the word that we are using throughout the Bill, and not only in Clause 20—"citizenship."That is the only expression that can be used. I do not mind very much whether it was used by Cicero or not, but it is the only word that can be found in the English language to describe this status—the word "citizenship."

Mr. W. J. Brown: Verminhood.

The Attorney-General: I hesitate to apply that any particular hon. Member at the moment. "Citizenship" may seem to some minds, and I dare say it does, at first blush, seem to connote the idea of relationship to some municipal corporation or local area of that kind, but


it is not so in the language of any other country in the world and it is not strictly so in our own. All over the world—I come now to another point raised by the right hon. Member for North Leeds—citizenship is, in fact, the term used to describe the people of a particular area—that is subject to the same sovereignty; the area of the sovereignty and the area of the citizenship is the same. It describes the status of persons who are ultimately subject to the same sovereignty.
I do not say, of course, and nobody has ever attempted to say, that everyone within the area of that sovereignty is a citizen. Of course, he is not. One may have people in this country who are foreigners and aliens and not citizens of this country at all; they are within the area of the sovereignty, but they are not citizens. Over the area where sovereignty is exercised, the persons who are the people of that country—to use an expression in contra-distinction to aliens—are the citizens of that area.
Their rights in different parts of the area may greatly differ. I believe it is true that the rights of people in the southern states of America are very different from the rights that might be enjoyed by the same people if they travelled to the Eastern seaboard, but they are proud to describe themselves as citizens of the United States and it is that subordination to the common legislature, that allegiance to the same sovereign, which constitutes the community of interest in the common status to which the right hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred.
I come to the point raised both by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Abingdon. Citizens of a colony under this Bill will, of course, be citizens here. If they go to Rochdale or Abingdon they will have exactly the same rights as I should have if I went to Rochdale or Abingdon. If, on the other hand, they go to some other Commonwealth country—South Africa or Canada or where ever it may be—they will have the same rights there, as far as I know, as I should have if I went to South Africa or Canada. That depends entirely on the legislation which may be passed there. Whatever their position after this Bill has been enacted, it will in no way differ from

their position now. It is open to the Commonwealth legislatures to discriminate. Suggestions have been made that they may do so; I hope and I am sure we all hope, that they will not, but it is open to them to discriminate between British subjects coming from England or those coming, for instance, from India. That will remain open to them, but it will be no easier for them to do that tomorrow than it was yesterday.
7.30 p.m.
I hope that we shall not seek to give, as the Bill in its present form would seek to give, to the term "British subject" a purely local connotation. The greater—the Commonwealth—status includes the lesser, the United Kingdom and colonial status. If one is a British subject in the Commonwealth as a whole then he will be a British subject in whatever part of the Commonwealth he may choose to go in this country, in a Colony, or in one of the other Commonwealth countries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about differentiation. It is exactly that which we seek by the provisions of this Bill to avoid. We do not want it to be said that in our relations with His Majesty there are variations, degrees and qualifications between the different classes of His Majesty's subjects. We want to provide that there shall be a common class throughout the Commonwealth, all the same, whatever the incidents of their citizenship may be in the particular countries from which they come.
Now I come to a point raised by the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). It was also touched upon, I think, by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Persons who before the passing of the Bill were British subjects, and who, possibly because of discriminatory legislation, if such a course were unfortunately adopted by a particular Commonwealth country, do not become Commonwealth citizens, are intended to be brought in by the transitional provisions in Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill to British subject-hood, and they are brought in through the door of United Kingdom and colonial citizenship. There is nothing there which involves any interference with the Commonwealth legislatures.
I dare say the hon. Member for North-wich would agree that the Commonwealth


Governments and Prime Ministers are better able to decide than he is whether the course we propose here involves any interference with their sovereign rights. They do not think it does. They have agreed with the scheme in this sense, and they have agreed that we are entitled in this country to provide that anybody who is a British subject now shall retain that status. That is what we are doing. We do not interfere with the law in Canada, South Africa, or wherever it may be. They may by laws—I do not say they will: but they may—make some discrimination amongst those who are now British subjects, in defining those who are to be their citizens and those who are not. We cannot stop that. They are sovereign. But we can say, without any kind of interference with them, "Those persons who are British subjects today will continue, by our law, to be recognised as British subjects, and if you do not adopt them we will pass them through our own gateway."

Mr. J. Foster: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me if I agree. Does he realise that there is a circuit? Suppose, hypothetically, that South Africa decides that Indians shall not be citizens to South Africa and, therefore, not British subjects. Or let us suppose Canada decides that Indians shall not be Canadian citizens. Canada having decided that anybody shall be a Canadian citizen who is recognised by another part of the Commonwealth. When the United Kingdom recognises Indians as British subjects they will go back again into Canada. Therefore, we have altered the law, because Indians, though excluded by one country, are put in again by us.

The Attorney-General: I am not saying that we are not. We cannot alter the law so far as South Africa is concerned—it that is the country which is introducing discriminatory legislation. We have taken that particular country as an example. I do not want it to be thought for a moment that there is any question whatever of discriminatory legislation there. I hope there never will be. We have merely taken it for an example. That country can provide by law that Indians are not to be regarded as South African citizens and are not to obtain British nationality through the South African gateway.
What we say then, under this Bill, is that if those persons are already British

subjects they shall retain that status, and they shall enter through our gateway. It would be open, of course, to India if she wanted to declare that such persons were citizens of India and get the common status through the Indian gateway. But we are content for the purposes of United Kingdom law to make quite sure that those people who are British subjects already will not lose that status so far as our law is concerned. What may be the position by the law of the other Dominions depends on the action which their own legislatures may take.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says these are transitional provisions. At what point, if any, is the transition over? Would not the effect continue to any distant time?

The Attorney-General: No. We may have an opportunity of discussing that when we come to those actual Clauses; but it is provided for in the Clauses. If the hon. Gentleman will read the Clauses he will see it is provided for. I have not the actual form of words in my mind, but I think it is "until the date when the citizenship law is passed in the Commonwealth country"—or some such words. That is the scheme of the thing, but we can discuss the details of it there.
Then there was the point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Abingdon about the position of protected States. Protected States are not, of course, Colonies. They do not become Colonies under this Bill. Nor do the inhabitants of protected States become British subjects. If a present inhabitant of a protectorate or protected State is already a British subject he will remain one. That is the effect of the provisions in this Bill, and certain quicker machinery is provided by which such persons may, in some circumstances, obtain naturalisation. But protected States do not alter their status in any degree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) asked what would be the position if New Zealand chose to use the term "British subject" instead of "citizen." We have no reason whatever to suppose that New Zealand is likely to do that. All our information leads to the contrary conclusion. We have every reason to think that New Zealand and all the other Commonwealth countries will implement the agreement which was


come to on the key matter embodied in Clause 1 of the Bill. Moreover, it may be that they will be given encouragement to do so and to use the expression "citizen" knowing that that status is the gateway to the common status of a British subject throughout the Commonwealth countries.
If for some reason which I completely fail to understand or to anticipate New Zealand did use the words "British subject" instead of "citizen of New Zealand," I suppose our courts would have to decide whether a "subject" of New Zealand, was, in fact, a "citizen" of New Zealand; and I dare say that that would provide some interesting litigation, although I should think the result would not be very much in doubt. However, that is one of those hypothetical questions which it is very easy to raise in a discussion like this but which is not very likely to occur in practice. Having got this agreement about the basic scheme of the Bill we can expect other countries will implement it just as we intend to implement it.

So I ask the Committee to restore to this Bill language the omission of which would destroy the whole structure which the free nations of our Commonwealth have agreed to set up in order to preserve our common allegiance to His Majesty, and the common family name, the common brotherhood which we share throughout the Commonwealth. I end on this note. So far as we are concerned in the United Kingdom we cannot legislate beyond the area of our sovereignty, the United Kingdom and our Colonies. So far as we are concerned all who are now British subjects will remain so; all who are now under the duty of allegiance to His Majesty will continue so to be; and all who possess that status now will be able, under the provisions of this Bill, to transmit it to their descendants in a way which will ensure that it will be recognised throughout our Commonwealth and throughout the world.

Question put, "That the words 'British subject' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111, Noes, 308.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hurd, A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hutchison, Lt-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V.


Bennett, Sir P.
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Carson, E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Drewe, C.
McFarlane, C. S.
Studholme, H. G.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon G. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gammans, L. D.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Grimston, R. V.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)
York, C.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Nield, B. (Chester)



Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hogg, Hon Q.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Major Conant and Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAdam, W.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAllister, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Fairhurst, F.
McEntee, V. La T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Farthing, W. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Field, Capt. W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Attewell, H. C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Follick, M.
McKinlay, A. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.


Ayles, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Baird, J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Balfour, A.
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gilzean, A.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bartlett, V.
Glyn, Sir R.
Marquand, H. A.


Barton, C.
Gooch, E. G.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Battley, J. R.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J.


Berry, H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Beswick, F.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Binns, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moody, A. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Boardman, H.
Gunter, R. J.
Morley, R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Guy, W. H.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A.


Bramall, E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Murray J. D.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardman, D. R.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
O'Brien, T.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Haworth, J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.


Burden, T. W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Callaghan, James
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, James
Hicks, G.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B. T.


Chater, D.
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Clues, W. S.
Hubbard, T.
Pearson, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peart, T. F.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Perrins, W.


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Price, M. Philips


Corlett, Dr. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Crawley, A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pryde, D. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnston, Douglas
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Daggar, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Randall, H. E.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ranger, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kendall, W. D.
Reeves, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, E. M.
Rhodes, H.


Deer, G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Richards, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kinley, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Delargy, H. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Robens, A.


Diamond, J.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Dobbie, W.
Lang, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Leonard, W.
Royle, C.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Sargood, R.


Dye, S.
Levy, B. W.
Scollan, T.


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott-Elliott, W.


Edelman, M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lipson, D. L.
Sharp, Granville


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Logan, D. G.
Shurmer, P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Longden, F.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)







Simmons, C. J.
Tiffany, S.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Skeffington, A. M.
Timmons, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Skinnard, F. W.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tolley, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Snow, J. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Solley, L. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sorensen, R. W.
Osborne, Henry
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Steele, T.
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, R.)
Walkden, E.
Willis, E.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Walker, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Lambeth)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wise, Major F. J.


Stubbs, A. E.
Warbey, W. N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Swingler, S.
Watkins, T. E.
Woods, G. S.


Sylvester, G. O.
Watson, W. M.
Wyatt, W.


Symonds, A. L.
Weitzman, D.
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D. G.



Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Mr. Collindridge and


Thurtle, Ernest
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
M. Wilkins.


Question, "That the word 'citizen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 10, leave out "British subject or."

In line 11, leave out "thereby," and insert "by virtue of that citizenship."—[Mr. Ede.]

The Chairman: If the Committee agrees, I think it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4), together with the proposed new Clause (Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4).
I am afraid I took up a very long time on the previous occasion on which I addressed the Committee, and I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can on this one, because here we are really traversing exactly the same point—and it is a fairly short point—that we have to consider during Second Reading. We are now considering whether we should delete Subsection (4) of Clause 1 as it stands in the Bill, as it has come down to us from another place, and in effect substitute the new Clause (Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects).
The Bill as at present drafted is calculated to cause embarrassment to those whose interests it is so mistakenly pretended or desired to protect, and at the same time it is likely to inflict an affront on a nation which, whether she were a member of the Commonwealth or a complete stranger, we have no right to impose upon her. The persons affected by this Amendment are citizens and subjects of Eire. The sovereign legislature of Eire

has laid down, as it was entitled to do, the principle, that in general its people—using now a neutral phrase—should not be of divided loyalty, but that they should decide, not seeking to get the best of both worlds, of which country they desired to be citizens.
It is perfectly open, of course, to any existing citizen of Eire to cease to be a citizen of Eire and to become a citizen of any other country; and persons who in future become citizens of Eire will not be debarred, as far as I know, by the Eireann law—although, of course, I cannot speak for the law of that country—and certainly will not be debarred by the United Kingdom law, from becoming nationals of other countries if they choose. But it is the fundamental right of any sovereign State to say that those who wish to retain the privileges of its own citizenship and nationality must forswear the citizenship and nationality of other countries. We may regret that particular countries should wish to take that course; but we cannot deny as a matter of international law, or as a matter within the practice of our own Commonwealth, that it is for each separate nation State which is a sovereign State to decide for itself whether it shall provide as part of its law that those who choose to be its citizens are not at the same time to be the citizens of any other country. Now, as a matter of fact, the Government and Parliament of Eire do not seek to do that, although they would have been entitled to if they had so chosen.
There is much in this Bill—as I indicated in the course of our Second Reading Debate—about which the Government of Eire are uneasy; but they are content that those who under our


existing law are British subjects should be entitled to claim to retain that British nationality without forfeiting their status and their position as citizens and subjects of Eire, the country in which they chose to live. Speaking as a lawyer, I am bound to say that, whilst we may have many political regrets about this, it seems to me that the position which has been taken up by the Government of Eire, ever since it was first enunciated by Mr. de Valera in that statement which I read to the House on Second Reading, is a correct position so far as the law is concerned.
Of course, in this Parliament we can disregard these rules of international law and of comity between the different countries in the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom Parliament can do anything. We can pass a Bill declaring that black is white, and the moment that Bill receives the Royal Assent, black will be white. It has been said that the only thing the United Kingdom Parliament cannot do is to make a man a woman. But I am not sure about that. The physiological results might be distinctly disappointing, but if such an Act were passed by this Parliament, then, in law, a man would become a woman. There is nothing that we cannot do.
The question that we have to consider here is: Is it really wise to proceed in this way in relation to a sister country, our relationship with which we are most anxious to improve? As a matter of comity governing the relations between the different Commonwealth countries, and as a matter of international law governing the relations between independent sovereign States, it would be quite wrong for us to insist on giving British nationality to persons who live in Eire, who have Eireann nationality, and who under the law of Eire are not entitled to have the nationality of another country. We have no more right to say of the citizens of Eire than of any other country—any completely sovereign country, the United States of America, or any other country—that, notwithstanding the fact that they choose to remain in Eire, and choose to retain the status of subjects and citizens of Eire and the nationality of Eire, they should none the less retain, under our law, the status which they would have possessed if history had been different and Eire had not broken away from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
8.0 p.m.
What we are entitled to say, and what we say by the proposed new Clause which appears at the end of the Amendment Paper, is, without in any way affecting the rules of comity which ought to govern our relationship, and which ought to govern the relationship of all the Commonwealth countries in matters of this kind: "Although you are, and remain, a citizen of Eire, if you come to this country we will give you all the advantages and all the privileges that we would confer on one of our own subjects and citizens." We are entitled to say that to Eire or to the citizens of any other Commonwealth country. Any other Commonwealth country is entitled to do the same.
What we are not entitled to say is: "Despite the laws of your own country and despite the fact that you choose to remain there and to be a citizen of that country, we are going to make you a national of this country." That we do not propose to do under the Bill. What we seek to do is to enable those who are British subjects at present to retain that right by claiming it. That, the Eire Government have agreed that we might do. Beyond that we have said, in relation to Eire as to any other sovereign State, it is for them to decide what the nationality of their people may be, and that all that we can do with propriety is to say that we shall always welcome those people to the full privileges that we extend to our own people in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The discussion on this Amendment is different in character from the discussion on the first three Amendments. The argument then was pre-eminently a legal one as to the precise effect upon the status of individuals of this or that combination of words as against other combinations. The argument here seems to be entirely different in kind and degree. The issue here is whether we are to import, or rather to accept at the instance of another place, the importation into the Bill of a provision which will have the effect of bringing us into conflict with another people. That, and nothing more or less, is the issue that we have to discuss here.
Whatever may be the argument about the Canadians, the Australians, the South Africans and the rest, Ireland is not a British country. She claims to be a


mother country in her own right. She has certainly sent out many sons all over the world. To treat Ireland as though she were like the countries which are of British settlement and origin is to approach the matter from a completely wrong angle. The Irish understand that the term "British subject" is one which is cherished by countries of the British race, but it would be a triumph of overstatement to say that it is a title which is loved by the Irish. Indeed, they have always consistently refused to accept the status of British subject. The very same sort of historical reason which makes the term "British subject" valuable and welcome to Canadians, Australians, South Africans and Englishmen, makes that title opprobrious to the Irish. We ought not, therefore, to seek to thrust it on them.
The third point is that the Irish have always objected, not only in words but, since they have had the power, in terms of law, to the term "British subject" being applied to them. The purpose of the Irish Nationality (Citizenship) Act, 1935, was to repudiate the claim that birth in Ireland could confer any nationality other than Irish nationality. It has been argued that since 1935 the issue has rather gone by default, and that the Irish have passively accepted the title "British subject" without making very much fuss about it. That is not true. It will be within the knowledge of the Attorney-General and other Members of the Government that conflicting legislation as between Eire and Britain in relation to citizenship has been the cause of conflict and difficulty between the two countries and, to a less extent, between the two peoples.
I do not want to be misunderstood. We have had difficulty on this matter in the past. For example, during the war I do not think that any Irishman resident in England was unwilling to do his turn at civil defence, fire watching and the rest, but there were many Irishmen who objected like the very devil to being conscripted to do that work as "British subjects." There is all the difference in the world between asking for voluntary service from a man and seeking to impose that service on him as an obligation by thrusting upon him a nationality which he does not want. In other parts of the Commonwealth the Irish resisted conscription as "British subject," not because

they were unwilling to fight for the land in which they lived and in which they made their living, but because they objected to being conscripted as "British subjects."
We may regard all that as a triumph of wrong-headedness. We may think that British subjecthood is perhaps the greatest honour that can ever be conferred upon a man. If he happens to take the view that that is not the case, we have to recognise that fact, and to proceed accordingly. These two races have a great deal in common. We do not want to throw any spanners into that particular wheel. We want the memory of Cromwell to be forgotten. I remember the story that was told about Mr. Lloyd George after one of his Irish conferences at No. 10 Downing Street, with Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins and others. After hours of negotiation they were all coming out of the front door when they were surrounded by a swarm of reporters. Some of them said to Mr. Lloyd George: "Sir, have you settled it?" His reply was: "Settled? Settled? We haven't got past Cromwell yet!" We have got past Cromwell, and we do not want to resurrect him in this connection, much as we may admire him in other connections.
The form of the Bill before it went to the other place was agreed with the Irish Government. I am told—and the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General may confirm this—that it was not a particularly enthusiastic agreement. It might be described as an acquiescence in the terms of the proposed Bill, rather than an enthusiastic advocacy of it. Even so, it is a considerable thing to have got an acquiescence. Having got it now, it would be utter folly to throw it away as if it were worth nothing. Anybody who has negotiated with any Irishman knows that to achieve any sort of agreement with him is a triumph of the improbable over the impossible! In those circumstances, the Government are perfectly right to try to restore the Bill to the condition it was in before it went to another place, and I will wholeheartedly support them in the Lobby.

Mr. Gage: It is difficult for one who, like myself, was born in the South of Ireland and lived his early life in perhaps one of the stormiest periods of Irish history, to speak on this


Amendment without emotion. The Committee will discount, on that account, anything I say which they feel may proceed merely from my emotions. I hope, being an Irishman, to be able to look at this matter not in the sentimental way in which most Englishmen look at Ireland, but through the spectacles of objectivity and common sense. When one looks at this Amendment and considers Ireland, and I think I can claim that I know Southern Ireland as well as most Members here, if not better than some, and the effect it will have upon Ireland, we find this. We find that roughly the South of Ireland can be divided into three groups. First of all there are those people who loathe England and have always loathed England, those people who have never for the last 25 years regarded themselves as British subjects and really do not care whether they are called British subjects by England or not. This Amendment will have no effect upon them at all. They have never been particularly impressed by any English Parliament, and being deeply conservative by nature they are certainly unlikely to be impressed by the measures of a Socialist Government. So far as they are concerned, this Amendment might never have been introduced at all.
Secondly, there are the people—and I suppose I may claim to be one of them—commonly called the "Southern Irish Loyalists," who are deeply affronted by this Amendment. They have for many years felt that it was their duty to build up the greatness of this Commonwealth, and they now feel affronted that they should have to go to an English Home Secretary and apply to him to be called, what they think is their undoubted right, a British subject. That feeling cannot be exaggerated. I know it to be the case from my relations with countless friends throughout the South of Ireland and in this country. In between these two classes there is perhaps the largest class of all, those who are really not particularly interested in this matter and will not be affected by it at all. So far as Southern Ireland is concerned, I do not think that this Amendment will be of any real importance at all. Its only effect will be that it will be regarded as ridiculous by one section and odious by the other. Already I have seen comments in the Irish papers on the subject of what their status here is to be; they are not to be

British subjects and yet they are to have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. I take it that if they so desire they will be able to stand for Parliament. I assume that that will be the case, although they will not be British subjects. Someone in a Dublin paper said that they will be a sort of international hermaphrodite. No one on either side has yet described precisely what their status will be.
So far as the North of Ireland is concerned, I think it is uncontroversial that this Amendment will set up another bar to the union of Ireland. I should have thought that the Home Secretary, who is very wise in these matters, would have been the bitterest opponent to this, because I recollect that on a previous occasion, when we were discussing an Amendment put forward by some of my hon. Friends—I think it was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir Hugh O'Neill)—during the Representation of the People Bill dealing with residents on either side of the border, he took it upon himself to take to task my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) for a speech he made on the subject. My hon. Friend was pointing out the difference between residents on either side of the border, and the right hon. Gentleman said this:
During my period of office I have done my very best to understand the temperament and problems of Northern Ireland, and I have on occasions incurred some odium with my hon. Friends on this side because I have endeavoured to observe strict impartiality in the discharge of the duties of my office in so far as they concern Northern Ireland. I am bound to say, however, that I consider the greater part of my work in that regard undone by the deplorable speech made by the hon. Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles). I can think of nothing more calculated to make it difficult for me to pursue my policy than the attacks he made on other British subjects with whom he happens to disagree in politics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1973–4.]
The right hon. Gentleman might have added that soon they would not be British subjects unless they got his permission.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: Surely the Home Secretary on that occasion was referring to people resident in Northern Ireland having come from the South whom Members opposite wished to exclude from the voters registers.

Mr. Gage: The hon. Member must read the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman was referring quite clearly to people who might be resident in the South and had come up and got on the register in the North. At that time they were British subjects, and he referred to them as such. I have no complaint about that, if indeed they are to remain British subjects.
When the Attorney-General was referring to this matter in his speech on Second Reading he said, and truly said, that the relations between this Parliament and Southern Ireland had unfortunately not been happy. He did not realise that as he said these words he himself was perpetuating to a large extent that unhappiness, because it has always been the case that Englishmen, so far as Ireland is concerned, seem to have the great gift of doing the wrong thing in the wrong way. When the Attorney-General—and I hope he will not think I am being in any way offensive—made his plausible argument and talked about Ireland in a slightly patronising way, he was only falling into the tradition of English politicians on both sides. I do not of course excuse some of my hon. Friends on this side, as they have a similar gift very often for doing the right thing in the wrong way in regard to Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will forgive me for saying that he too was guilty of this in the same Debate, when immediately before the Attorney-General he sought to fortify his argument by a very invidious and inaccurate comparison between the war effort of the North of Ireland and the South, which had very little to do with the matter. I only say that because it is an unfortunate fact that statesmen in England always seem, when dealing with Ireland, to speak in a patronising way and as if it were the fault of Ireland that our relations have not been too happy. They always speak of trying to do better next time, and then proceed to make the same mistakes. They are making now, at this stage in Irish history, perhaps the greatest mistake of all, because they are—and it cannot be too strongly emphasised—doing something which Southern Irish Loyalists feel is wrong. By insisting that those who live in Eire should write to the Home Secretary to obtain the status of British subjects they are doing something which Southern Irish Loyalists feel is an indignity which is being put upon them.
The Attorney-General truly said that it is possible to do most things by Act of Parliament. It is possible to make black white, or to license a dog, and there is also an Act of Parliament which turns lawyers like himself and myself into gentlemen. Yes, most things can be done by Act of Parliament, but a man's loyalties cannot be changed by Act of Parliament. His heart cannot be changed. Call him what you like, it is impossible to change the way he is made, and the way he thinks about these things. Yet that is what this Amendment, to some extent, seeks to do. It cannot change the loyalties of these people in Southern Ireland, but it can wound their feelings.
In conclusion, I hope that my friends in the South, if this Amendment is passed, will not apply to have themselves called British subjects, because their claim to that rests on far surer grounds. It rests on their great record in the past, and in the services which they are now performing towards this country and which, in spite of anything that may be done here, or elsewhere, they will continue to give unstintingly. It is on that that their claim rests, and not on any legalistic interpretation. I am not speaking as a lawyer in this matter, because these things go too deep for those who have experienced the passions and feelings that no Englishman can properly understand. I am quite certain that even if this Government do not recognise it, English people generally recognise that the claim of many of those in the South of Ireland, who have stuck to England throughout all the stages of her history, is a just and honest one.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: All of us must recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) has addressed the Committee. He has sharply separated the ethics of Englishmen and Irishmen in this matter, but as I am in neither of those categories I can take a detached view of this problem. So long as the law of this country insists that certain persons who form a loyal English group within Eire are British subjects, and the law of Eire says they are not, that is a position which cannot make for good will between the two countries. The Government of Eire agreed that these people could become British subjects, and would be recognised as Britsh subjects. If we now


reject the agreement which was made with the Government of Eire we shall lose the benefit of the good will that was created. For that reason, I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. Delargy: Unlike the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) I was not born in Southern Ireland, but in the North of England, and I can, therefore, consider this matter without emotion in my usual calm and detached manner. The hon. Member spoke principally about the Southern Irish Loyalists. He spoke of them with an emotion which was both deep and sincere, and which all of us on this side, as well as on his own, respect, even if we do not share it. But emotion is not the best of arguments, and the hon. Gentleman rather give his case away at the end by reminding the Committee that he was not speaking as a lawyer on this point. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a very small minority—about 2 per cent. It is generally taken that the Southern Irish Loyalist population is about 2 per cent. of the population of the 26 counties of Southern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman says we shall affront those people unless we resist the Home Secretary's Amendment. That would mean, of course, that we would be affronting the other 98 per cent., which I do not consider to be a very valid democratic argument.

Mr. Gage: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the other 98 per cent, care one way or the other about this matter?

Mr. Delargy: So far as we know they do. No Gallup poll or census has been taken among them, nor has it been taken among the Southern Irish Loyalists. But we know from their spokesmen that they do consider this matter of prime importance. The Government and the Opposition in Eire are completely unanimous on this point. No affront is being offered to Southern Irish Loyalists in asking them to send an application form to His Majesty's principal adviser in the matters. What is difficult or humiliating about it?
This Amendment is a good one, because it aims at two simple results, both of which are most praiseworthy. We are trying, first, to recognise a fact and, second, to seal a friendly agreement. It is a fact that most Irishmen do not regard themselves as British subjects, and it is

also a fact that the Irish Citizenship Act, 1935, does not regard them as British subjects. However much we may disagree with that fact we must recognise it. This admirable Amendment simply faces that fact; it agrees that there is a fact. I know it is asking a lot of the Opposition to recognise a fact, even when it stares them in the face, but that is precisely what the Amendment seeks to do.
The second result, as I have said, will be to legalise a friendly agreement. Unfortunately, there have been so few friendly agreements between the two countries that we certainly ought to encourage any agreement whenever we can. On Second Reading, I pointed out that the Irish civil servants who attended the conference in 1947, under the admirable chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, were satisfied with the results. So are politicians in Ireland. The Opposition party in Dail Eireann and the present Government there are far more pleased with the Home Secretary's interpretation of this matter than with the narrow, niggardly and Victorian-minded Amendment which has come to us from another place. What is good enough for all politicians in Ireland and what meets with the approval of His Majesty's Government and the Home Secretary here ought surely to be good enough for us.
8.30 p.m.
There is one curious question I should like to ask and maybe the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will answer it later. The words "citizen of Eire" do not mean in Ireland what they are held to mean here. The word "Eire" is used on both sides of this Committee to signify that part of Ireland which is governed from Dublin, but in Dublin itself and also what is more important, in actual fact, it means something different. The word "Eire" according to the dictionary and to the Irish Constitution reads quite simply "Ireland"—the whole of Ireland. A citizen of Eire, therefore, an inhabitant of Eire means a man or woman in any part of Ireland, north or south. I should like to know whether this definition, which is in the dictionaries, and as understood by the lawyers as well as the lexicographers, is going to be accepted here.
If it is not, as well as changing the laws we are also presuming to change language and the meaning of words. The Attorney-General a little time ago reminded us that in this Parliament we can do practically anything. We can legally make black into white and he was not certain but that we can make a man into a woman. I want to know if legally we can alter the meaning of words in the dictionary. However, that is a question which comes at the end of the Amendment. I hope the Amendment will pass, because, as I say, it legalises something which has existed for 13 years in Ireland and it helps, in however small a way, to build up friendly relations between these two countries.

Mr. Peake: We are discussing an Amendment to delete Clause 1 (4) in the Bill as it now stands, and with that we are discussing the new Clause at the end of the Order Paper entitled "Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects." We are told that this Bill is designed to clarify the position regarding nationality throughout the British Commonwealth, to tidy matters up and to produce order in place of a threatened chaos. The first question which I ask myself in regard to this Amendment dealing with the position of citizens of Eire is: What is their future status going to be? So far as I am aware under British or United Kingdom law as it stood hitherto, there have been three classes of persons, British subjects, aliens, and the category whose position is not quite so clearly defined as the other two—British protected persons.
If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is carried and Subsection (4) is deleted, we are thrown back to the position that nobody will have the slightest conception what is the position of Eire citizens under our own domestic law. It is quite clear they will not for the future be British subjects. It is stated in the White Paper issued with the Bill that the mere fact that Eire is omitted from the list of Dominions, as stated in Clause 1 (2), shows that that is in fact the case. They will not be British subjects, but it is further stated that they will not be aliens.
I am of the opinion that they will clearly not be British protected persons, and they will, therefore, occupy a novel,

indeed a unique position, because, while they have no national status here, it is declared in Clause 2 (2) that they will continue to enjoy all rights and privileges as if they were British subjects. That seems to me the first reason why we should maintain Subsection (4) in the Bill. It makes it clear what the status of Eire citizens will be in the future; it will continue to be in the future what it has been for the past 13 years—that of British subjects.
It is stated that if this position is allowed to continue, it will be an affront to the citizens of Eire. This situation has already gone on for 13 years, ever since the Eire Citizenship Act of 1935, and so far as I know no great disadvantages flowed from it. It is true that during the war, at the Home Office we had certain difficulties in defining Defence Regulations and other Measures under which we were enabled to prevent British subjects from Eire landing at United Kingdom ports. There were some technical difficulties about the exclusion of British subjects from the United Kingdom. What is proposed in the Bill will not overcome that difficulty. It is perfectly true they will cease to be British subjects, but it is laid down in Clause 2 that they are to continue to enjoy all rights and privileges as if they were British subjects, so that making them no longer British subjects will not help in any way if, in the event of another war, we wish to control traffic between Eire and the United Kingdom. In this matter the onus of proof must rest upon the Government. They are proposing a change in the status here of citizens of Eire, and the onus of proof, therefore, must rest with them.
I want for a moment to turn from the main subject to the new Clause. It provides that from the passing of this Bill all citizens of Eire will cease to be British subjects forthwith, but it is provided by the new Clause that any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject can continue to remain a British subject, if he or she fulfils conditions laid down in the Clause relating to his or her connection with this country, and also if he or she makes application to the Home Secretary expressing his or her desire to remain a British subject.
The first point to which I would call attention is that the Clause applies only to living persons. As I read the Clause, it is not possible for a person who is a citizen of Eire and who elects to remain a British subject to transmit that British status to his successors. Clearly the new Clause only applies to people who are alive at the time of the passage of the Bill. That is to say, in the course of time there will be no citizens of Eire who will in future be British subjects. As soon as the present generation who elect to retain British nationality die out, not a single citizen of Eire will also be a British subject.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: They can elect for their children.

Mr. Peake: They can elect for their children if their children are alive at the time of the passing of the Bill. There is a new provision relating to children under the age of 16 which was not found in the original Bill introduced in another place. For that we are grateful, but in the course of time we shall get to a position where no citizen of Eire is also a British subject.
We are told that this is the result of a bargain or a deal reached, I imagine, at the time of the conference 18 months ago between the British and Eire Governments, and what we ought to be told, if this is a bargain, is what we stand to gain by it. After all, the essence of any bargain is that each side gains some advantage from it. I can quite see that Eire gains a great deal by this arrangement. They gain a clear admission by the Government of the United Kingdom that citizens of Eire will no longer be regarded here as British subjects. We are told that that is something which they have long desired to achieve, and it seems that they are gaining what they desire.
However, what I ask myself is: What advantage do we get from these arrangements now or in the future? I cannot see that we gain anything. We abandon those who are known as the Southern Irish Loyalists. We are deserting our friends in the South of Ireland, those people who came over in large numbers—I will not say in greater numbers than came from Northern Ireland—to help us in the war effort. I agree, with the exception of a single

sentence, with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) on this matter. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the citizens of Eire do not care a rap how they are regarded in this country, but a few, a minority of those whom we know as the Southern Irish Loyalists, do care a great deal. I am quite sure that our friends, the people who stood by us in Southern Ireland, who came forward to help us in the war, will be deeply offended by what the Government are now proposing to do.
I therefore ask the Home Secretary, in justifying this bargain, if he can, to try to show what we gained by this arrangement. Things have gone on in an anomalous position, it is true, for the past 13 years but the anomaly does not seem to have done anybody very much harm. However, instead of that, we are to have a completely new anomaly from henceforward onwards and citizens of Eire will have a status in this country which is undefinable, which has never been defined hitherto and which never can be defined in the future. For those reasons, we shall go into the Lobby against the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had a short, and for an Irish discussion, a placid one on this Amendment. In fact, the only person who really got into trouble or had hard words said about him was the right hon. Gentleman when he had to listen to what his hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) said about him. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) stated the case for the Amendment very well. In his analysis of the situation he dealt accurately and faithfully with the issues involved. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) alleged that there was some bargain or deal in this matter. I know of no one on this side of the Committee or any of my noble Friends in another place who has made any such suggestion that there has been a bargain or deal.

Mr. Peake: I am afraid I must have misunderstood the whole course of our Debates on this matter. Surely it has been stated time and time again from the Government Front Bench that this is an agreement between the British Government and the Government of Eire?

Mr. Ede: Yes, this is undoubtedly an agreement, but not a bargain. I do not know anyone who has alleged that there was any bargain or deal.

Mr. James Hudson: It is a straightforward agreement.

Dr. Morgan: It is a new definition of agreement.

Mr. McGhee: It is a Tory definition of agreement.

Mr. Peake: What is the difference between an agreement and a bargain?

Mr. Ede: A very considerable one. Occasionally I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not so far been aware that it has been the result of a bargain or a deal. Perhaps my idea of a deal happens to coincide with his or perhaps he sufficiently conceals his idea so that I am able to agree with him. There was nothing of that kind in these discussions. We are faced with the anomaly which exists as a result of the Act of the Parliament of Eire in 1935 and the position of citizens of Eire when they come to this country. What we have managed to do for the first time in the history of the two countries since the separation between them, is to arrive at a working arrangement as to how these respective people shall be regarded in this country. I agree with what the hon. Member for Rugby said. I am not at all sure that on both sides it was not more acquiescence rather than agreement which marked the concluding stages of our discussions.
The hon. Member for South Belfast thought it would be an affront for a person to become a British citizen by permission of the Home Secretary. Let me say that the permission of the Home Secretary is not involved. If a person claims from Southern Ireland to be a British subject, by that claim he becomes a British subject, and there is no power in this Clause that may refuse him. In that, certainly, the citizen of Eire who desires to become a British subject, and to be known as such, is favoured above all the other people of the earth. Anyone else who desires to make such a claim and to have it granted, has, of course, to go through the complete process of naturalisation. He has to have the prescribed period of

residence and to be subjected to the investigation of his character and antecedents by the Secretary of State and his advisers, and in other ways to subject himself to a very considerable examination before he acquires that status. Any person now living in Southern Ireland who desires to become a British subject becomes such merely by making the claim, and no one in this country, if he makes that claim, can refuse him the status for which he asks.

Mr. Gage: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—this is an important matter. He has, has he not, to satisfy one of the grounds set out in the new Clause?

Mr. Ede: Yes.

Mr. Gage: Provided he satisfies those grounds?

Mr. Ede: Provided he satisfies those grounds, and makes the claim, then the permission of the Secretary of State is not required.
With regard to the position of the person who has not made such a claim, but comes to this country, he is not an alien. The moment he lands on these shores he has all the rights and privileges that attach to being a British subject in this country. I cannot see that there is any affront to anyone in being in that position. In fact I should have thought that those who are claiming for the Southern Irish loyalist the right that he should retain his position of a British subject without any question, would have welcomed that arrangement. It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) asked me about the question of who was a citizen of Eire. The Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938, provides that in United Kingdom law the word "Eire" is to be used to describe what was previously known as the Irish Free State, that is to say, the 26 counties of Southern Ireland. The persons who will be affected by this arrangement, and by the new Clause, will be those who are subject, as citizens, to the Government of Southern Ireland. It


does not extend to the six counties of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) asked what was to happen in the event of a future war; how should we be able to deal with the citizens of Southern Ireland under the provisions of this Measure if, unfortunately, another war was to break out. He drew attention to the fact that in the last war the problem was not without its great difficulties. But, apparently as a result of his own presence at the Home Office, those difficulties were overcome, and I have no doubt that on any future occasion the resources of English statesmanship and of English draftsmen would be sufficient to deal with the situation that then arose. I believe that, by the fact that we have been able to get the acquiescence of both sides to the present arrangement, we can find some hope for an improvement in the relationship between those two countries.
I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that those who participated in the conference on behalf of Southern Ireland were most helpful in the way they approached the subject. Southern Ireland in fact was the only country which sent a woman to the conference. They were most helpful in every way throughout the proceedings. We commend this Amendment and the new Clause to the Committee because they represent for the first time something upon which people on both sides of the Irish Sea have been able to agree.

Mr. Gage: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer one question which I asked. Will the rights of those people who do not apply to him, include that of being able to stand for this Parliament? Apparently they have all the rights and privileges.

Mr. Ede: I want to be quite clear about the question. This is a person who comes to this country, who has not applied for permission to be regarded as a British subject but who comes here and desires to stand for Parliament. One of the rights and privileges of a British subject is to be eligible for candidature for this House. Therefore, these persons, being in this country and having all the rights and privileges of a British subject, will be eligible for candidature for, and membership of, this House.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: My right hon. Friend referred to giving permission. Surely, all that is necessary is that notice should be given? There is no question of giving permission. As I understand it, particularly from his previous observations, there is no question of permission being given by the Home Secretary to the claimant. The position is merely that notice must be given.

Mr. Ede: I hoped that I had made it clear in my previous remarks that no permission is required.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I hope that we may come to a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that when a citizen of Eire comes to England he enjoys all the rights and privileges of a British subject. I should like him also to make it clear that when a British subject from England goes to Eire he will enjoy there all the rights and privileges of an Eire citizen.

Mr. Ede: That depends upon the law of Eire just as the rights and privileges of a person from this country in any of His Majesty's Dominions depends upon the law of the country to which the person from this country goes.

Sir W. Smiles: Then I understand that no agreement of any kind has been come to on this subject.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise if I have been stupid but I am afraid I have not yet quite understood the right hon. Gentleman on three points. The first is that the Irishman or the Eireann I think is the right world—the Eireann not meaning the Aryan Hitler meant but the Eireann in the other sense—who has not claimed to be registered as a British subject, comes to this country and may be elected to this House. Can he take the oath when he has been elected? Whether or not he takes the oath, can he, for instance, be charged with high treason? It seems to be a very anomalous arrangement if he can be a Member of this House. He might be First Lord of the Treasury, because we all know that the bovine Saxon may pull but does not push so hard, and one of these chaps might get ahead of us all. May he become


First Lord of the Treasury, yet be incapable of being guilty of high treason?
The second point which I. did not get quite clear was about the Eireann who does claim to have some connection with this country, and, therefore, to be registered as a British subject. I. had thought that I. understood the Bill and the Clause, but I. am not sure that I. understand the explanation, and the question I. put is this: The right hon. Gentleman said there was no question of his consent, but there is, surely, the question of his recognition of a set of facts? Or is that wrong? Does this recognition depend on his judgment whether or not the applicant has that degree of direct relation to this country and its Government which the applicant claims to have and upon which the applicant rests his claim to be registered as a British subject? I. think that puts the question clearly, and, with every respect, although I. may be mistaken, I. do not think the answer to that question was previously clear, and I. hope that we may get it clear.
Thirdly, and with much more diffidence, is it quite certain—I am glad that we now have the advantage of the presence of the learned Attorney-General again—is it quite certain that, if this Clause passes as it is and the rest of the Bill passes, is it quite certain that somebody, born and brought up in Eire but not having been registered as a British subject, would find it quite impossible to claim in a British court of law that he was a British subject under the common law? It is quite certain that no court could hold that there was an allegiance, that there had been an allegiance, that there had been no explicit ending of that allegiance and that, therefore, the claim as ordinarily founded upon the allegiance was still standing? Is it quite certain that this Clause would get away from the possibility of that decision?

Mr. Delargy: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to delay the whole Committee by asking questions most of which have been answered by

Front Bench Ministers when he was absent from the House?

The Chairman: I. do not think that question arises.

Mr. Ede: I. will endeavour to deal with the questions put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). With regard to the first, the man would be capable of taking the oath. Whether he took it or not would be a matter for him. Mr. Bradlaugh refused to take the oath, though he could come to the Table and be sworn—[Interruption.] I. cannot answer here for what would be the effect on a man under Irish law. After all, none of us wants to create bad relations between the two countries, and I. hope I. shall not be pressed to give offhand answers to questions which might raise such points. I. am only dealing—and I. do not profess to do more—with issues that will be raised under United Kingdom law in the event of the Amendment being carried and the Bill becoming law. If, having taken the oath, he was then accused of high treason, I. am advised that he could be tried, and, if found guilty, condemned for that offence.
The second question which the hon. Member put was with regard to the extent, if any, to which permission from the Secretary of State is required under the new Clause. I. am advised that under the Clause as drafted, I. have no claim to be satisfied that the man fulfils the three conditions. If there is a bona fide claim, I. have no option at all, but whether the question of bona fides could be tested in the courts or not is a matter on which lawyers would have to advise me. The third question which the hon. Gentleman put to me was again entirely legal in its character, and would depend for its answer on a decision of the courts.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 307.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[9.6 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Corbet, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Carson, E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Challen, C.
Crowder, Capt. John E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Channon, H.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Digby, S. W.


Boyd-Corpenter, J. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.




Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robinson, Roland


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Ropner, Col. L.


Duthie, W. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, Lord W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McFarlane, C. S.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W.


Fox, Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Snadden, W. M.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Gage, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Gammons, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Grant, Lady
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Nicholson, G.
Touche, G. C.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Walker-Smith, D.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Hurd, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Osborne, C.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Keeling, E. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Langford-Holt, J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
York, C.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Raikes, H. V.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.



Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Renton, D.
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Colman, Miss G. M.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Guest, Dr L. Haden


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gunter, R. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Alpass, J. H.
Crawley, A.
Hale, Leslie


Attewell, H. C.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Daggar, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardman, D. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hardy, E. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Harrison, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baird, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Haworth, J.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.


Barstow, P. G.
Delargy, H. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Barton, C.
Diamond, J.
Hicks, G.


Battley, J. R.
Dobbie, W.
Holman, P.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Benson, G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hoy, J.


Berry, H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hubbard, T.


Beswick, F.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Binns, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bowden, Flg, Offr. H. W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fairhurst, F.
Jenkins, R. H.


Bramall, E. A.
Farthing, W. J.
Johnston, Douglas


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Brown, George (Belper)
Follick, M.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kendall, W. D.


Burden, T. W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Kenyon, C.


Callaghan, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
King, E. M.


Carmichael, James
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gibbins, J.
Kinley, J.


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Kirby, B. V.


Chater, D.
Gilzean, A.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lang, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Cocks, F. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Leonard, W.


Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Leslie, J. R.


Collindridge, F.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lever, N. H.


Collins, V. J.
Grey, C. F.
Levy, B. W.







Lewis, I. (Southampton)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Swingler, S.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lipson, D. L.
Parker, J.
Symonds, A. L.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Marpeth)


Logan, D. G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Longden, F.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Lyne, A. W.
Pearson, A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


McAdam, W.
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


McAllister, G.
Perrins, W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McEntee, V. La T.
Popplewell, E.
Tiffany, S.


McGhee, H. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Timmons, J.


Mack, J. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Titterington, M. F.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Price, M. Philips
Tolley, L.


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Pritt, D. N.
Turner-Samuels, M.


McKinlay, A. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


McLeavy, F.
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, Henry


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Randall, H. E.
Viant, S. P.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ranger, J.
Wadsworth, G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, J.
Walker, G. H.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reeves, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watson, W. M.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Rhodes, H.
Weitzman, D.


Marquand, H. A.
Richards, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
West, D. G.


Mayhew, C. P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Royle, C.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Mikardo, Ian
Sargood, R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Scollan, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Moody, A. S.
Scott-Elliott, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Sharp, Granville
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Shurmer, P.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moyle, A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Murray J. D.
Simmons, C. J.
Willis, E.


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wise, Major F. J.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Solley, L. J.
Woods, G. S.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W.


O'Brien, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Yates, V. F.


Oldfield, W. H.
Steele, T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)



Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stubbs, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. G. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Limitation of liability of citizens of Dominions and Eire for offences overseas. Status of citizens of Eire and British protected persons.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 4, leave out second "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Subjects by birth.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I. beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "and Colonies," and to insert "or in any colony."
The reason I. move this Amendment is that I. have—I hope rightly—a prejudice in favour of a statute's not being nonsense

on the face of it. The Clause as it runs at present states:
Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born in the United Kingdom and Colonies …
I wonder whether anybody has ever met a person who has been born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. The thing is so fantastic that I. have every expectation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this Amendment with gratitude in order to convert a Bill which is at present, in this Clause, nonsense into sense. Incidentally, it will do no harm to any point which the Government may have in mind. The marvels of modern science are very great, but I. still doubt whether it is possible for a person to be born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Attorney-General is not sure about that, and, doubtless, we shall hear a rather obstetric argument from him on


this subject. Nevertheless, I think the thing, if possible, will be of sufficient rarity for my proposed words to be preferable.
Lest it should be thought that this is in any way hostile to the Bill I would point out that nowhere am I proposing to interfere with the phrase "British subject" or, if the Governments Amendments are accepted, "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth." That omnibus phrase will remain. That may be what the Government want. That, indeed, although objectionable on grounds which have been discussed earlier, is, at any rate, not meaningless: it is possible to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. What is clearly impossible is to be born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. I therefore suggest that the Government should accept the Amendment, which will make the Clause run:
Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born in the United Kingdom or in any Colony …

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): We all know how keen the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Henry Strauss) is on the proper use of English, and we take the Amendment which he has moved to be a manifestation of that. I should be the first to agree that on purely stylistic grounds there may be something to be said for the case that he has made. I would call his attention, however, to this fact, that throughout the Bill the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" is constantly used in a number of different connections. The area comprised in those words is treated as one. Hon. Members opposite have spent the last three or four hours largely objecting to the fact that it is treated as a single area, and that these two conceptions of the United Kingdom and the Colonies should be treated as a single area throughout the Bill.
The question is not so much one of style as of clarity. Is it better to use this phrase which in most cases must take the form of "United Kingdom and Colonies" throughout the Bill as though it were a single unit, representing a single area, or is it better, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, to pick and choose certain cases where the phrase occurs, and where it may be thought in

some ways better to alter it and, therefore, to have a variation of the phrase throughout the Bill?
I submit that it is much clearer to leave it as it is. If we like to read the phrase in a certain way and tone of voice, we can make a certain absurdity out of the proposition that a person is born in the United Kingdom and Colonies. I suggest that he would not wink an eyelid if someone told him that he was born in Ross and Cromarty. That is exactly the same thing. It is quite well recognised as a single area, and for the purpose of this Bill the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" is recognised throughout as a single area. If there were any chance of ambiguity I should be very willing to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not think that there is. I think that there is much less chance of ambiguity by leaving it in this way than in the way in which he seeks to amend the Clause.

Mr. J. Foster: In page 2, line 21 the Bill says:
any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies…
which is obviously recognising that it is not one area. All the hon. Gentleman would need to do to meet the point of my hon. and learned Friend would be to say, "Any person born in any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and that would put the matter right.

Mr. Younger: I think that why the phrase occurs there is because the local laws are different, but for the purposes of this Bill it is, as I have said, a single area.

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realised when he gave me the example of Ross and Cromarty, that "Colony" is mentioned separately in the definition Clause of this Bill. His argument will not do. I quite agree that "United Kingdom and Colonies" is a composite phrase which, on the ground of what has already been decided by the Committee, I do not question wherever it makes sense. I am attacking it on the one point where it demonstrably makes nonsense. I do not think that it is a trivial matter that this House should acquiesce in something which is nonsense. It is nonsense to say "any person born in the United Kingdom and Colonies," and if the hon. Member and his right


hon. Friend will look at the definition Clause they will find that "Colony" is separately mentioned and that the United Kingdom and Colonies is not defined as a composite phrase. The Government can have their composite phrase in every other place where they really need it; but do they solemnly insist on the Committee adopting it in the one place where it makes obvious nonsense?

Mr. Benn Levy: Although it is true that pedantically or literally speaking it is impossible to be born in the British Isles, would the hon. and learned Member object to that phrase?

Mr. Strauss: No, I should not.

Mr. Levy: One can be born in only one British island.

Mr. Strauss: Yes, but I think that if the hon. Member will devote his not inconsiderable intelligence to the fallacy in his own argument he will not find the slightest difficulty in discovering it.

Mr. Keeling: The Under-Secretary has not really grappled with the point of my hon. and learned Friend's argument. The Under-Secretary said that in various parts of this Bill the words "the United Kingdom and Colonies" are used; but he has not grappled with the point that wherever else they are used they do no violence to the English language. In other words, they make sense. My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that it is not possible to be born in the "United Kingdom and Colonies," and I ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether he could not before the Report stage adopt either this Amendment or the very reasonable compromise suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), to insert the words "in any part of."

Mr. J. Foster: Another compromise which I think would meet the situation is if the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" were put into the definition Clause, for then it would be one area, as is the British Isles.

The Attorney-General: It is already there.

Mr. H. Strauss: No.

Mr. Foster: The word "Colony" is in the definition Clause, so it does not refer to the countries in Clause 3. Obviously, this is not vitally important, but it is a pity that something which makes nonsense, and which could be cured by the simplest form of drafting, should remain. It seems rather obstinate on the part of the Under-Secretary to insist on this. He has only to put in the definition Clause that the United Kingdom and Colonies shall equal the area comprised by the United Kingdom and Colonies now, and that would solve the whole problem. Or he could adopt the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which is better still because it makes it clear.
I wish the Under-Secretary would look at it again, instead of being obstinate. Admittedly, it is pedantic; but people always describe things as "pedantic" when the other man is right. The Under-Secretary says it is stylistic, which is another word always used when the other man is right. The wording does not make any sense as it is. The people of the Dominions probably will not think any worse of us if we have this nonsense here, but Maxwell on his Interpretation of the Statutes will shake his head.

Mr. Younger: I do not think it is quite so simple as the hon. Member pretends. If I understood the earlier objections aright, they were on the ground that this phrase does violence to the English language, and I can see the point of that. The form of Amendment just suggested by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) would not remedy that at all; it would not alter the phrase; it would not make a linguistic difference to the beginning of Clause 3. Logically, of course, to somebody who looked at a quite different part of the Bill the thing would fit in rather better.
However, I think there might be a possibility of accepting something on the lines of inserting "in any part of," because that would leave the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies" intact as a unit. I hesitate to give any assurance on this point, because the draftsmen have considered this at an earlier stage. It is a very technical drafting matter, but I will undertake to look at this before the Report stage.

Mr. H. Strauss: Whatever the Government may think my attitude to any other Clause of the Bill to be, I assure them that on this particular Amendment I desired merely to be helpful, and to put forward an Amendment which would put the Bill into better form. I am not at the present moment discussing the best alternative wording although I believe my Amendment to be a wise one. But on the assurance the Under-Secretary has just given, that he will look into this again—although I appreciate he could not give a firm undertaking—and consider a more appropriate form of words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 40, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Younger.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Subjects by descent.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 10, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Younger.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Renton: During the Second Reading Debate I asked the Government how Clause 4 (1, b) would be applied in regard to those British subjects or Commonwealth citizens who are not resident within the Commonwealth but in foreign countries outside, and I described in some detail the various categories of such British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in Egypt. There are, of course, other important communities one could take, for instance, in Portugal. Without going into the matter in any great detail again, as I recollect that there were several Members on the Government Front Bench present when I was speaking, I should like to ask whoever is to reply what the policy will be in regard to two types of people in Egypt, for example. The first type are the British persons of the second or third generation whose connections are perhaps beginning to get a little bit away from official British recognition, but to whom, because

of their services during the war, as far as the present generation is concerned, we owe it to recognise them as British subjects. With that in view, may I ask what is to be the policy of the Government in exercising the discretion given by the words "with permission of the Secretary of State"?
The second category of persons I mentioned on the previous occasion are those people who are British only on a technical view of the law, those people whose ancestors at some time in the past have in some obscure and technical way acquired British nationality and who, except for the fact that they go to the British Consulate to register and sign on as British, have no justification for continuing to be called British. I described them on the previous occasion as "Don Pacificos," and not all Don Pacificos are worthy of being English, as the Home Secretary mentioned during the Second Reading Debate. If we are told that a result of this Clause will be to give the right to such people and all their descendants in perpetuity to be British subjects, I think we shall require some justification for it. The passing of this Bill is an occasion for attempting to rationalise the position, so that we do not debase the advantageous and beneficial right, as we must consider it, of being called a British subject.

Mr. Younger: On the question of the permission of the Secretary of State under Clause 4(1, b), I do not think it is possible to state with any precision, in what circumstances such permission might be given, but there might be occasions when the Secretary of State was satisfied that omission to register within a year was due to perfectly good reasons. It may have been because of absence far distant from a place where registration could be made. It may have been due to ignorance of the law. I do not think we can exclude the possibility that my right hon. Friend might think that that was good ground in certain circumstances. He would require some explanation as to why registration had not taken place. If it was merely due to a lack of interest in becoming a British subject it might be that my right hon. Friend would not think it right to give his permission.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I am sure he appreciates that he is raising a difficult problem. His proposal, as I


understand it, would mean that the Secretary of State would have to decide on the merits of someone who applied for permission to register in accordance with the law. My right hon. Friend would have to decide whether or not he was a worthy case for British citizenship; he would have to decide whether that person retained a link with British life which made him a British subject. That would be difficult for my right hon. Friend to decide. It would not be in accordance with previous law. I am not aware that there has been any major anomaly, although there have been some anomalous cases. The difficulty of putting the matter right would be very great and, in the Bill, there is no attempt to exclude such persons from British citizenship.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Registration of British subjects of countries mentioned in s. 1 (3) or of citizens of Eire and female British protected persons, married to British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 3, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 6.—(Registration of alien women married to British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies and of minors.)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
With your permission, Mr. Beaumont, and that of the Committee, I would like to deal, at the same time, with the other Amendment in my name to this Clause—in page 4, line 36, at the end to insert:
unless in the opinion of the Secretary of State special reasons exist why such woman or, as the case may be, such minor child should not be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
—as they are related. I put these Amendments down as I believe the Clause as it stands is unsatisfactory and requires more attention before it passes this Committee. While I believe that everybody is in agreement with the principle of the Bill which ensures that in future

British women will not automatically lose their British nationality on marriage to an alien, I do not think we are all agreed that it is a good thing to change the present law, which provides that when a British subject marries a woman of some other nationality he thereby endows her with British nationality and British citizenship. That has been the law since 1870 and, I think, since 1844. It has been the law because it is based on good sense, and pays due regard to the principles of married life.
It is desirable, wherever possible, that a husband and wife should have the same nationality; it is also desirable, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that if a British subject marries a woman of some other nationality that woman should become a British subject, and that the children of that marriage should have a British mother as well as a British father. Under Clause 6 as it stands that is no longer going to be the law, and for what reason?
The reason has been stated by the Home Secretary in introducing this Bill in similar words to those of the Lord Chancellor in another place, and the only reason, so far as we can discover, for this change in the law is that it has been found in the past that a certain number of undesirable women have come over to Dover or some other port, and have entered into a fictitious and spurious form of marriage with an obliging British subject anxious to earn a few pounds, not intending the marriage to be a real marriage, but merely a means of enabling the woman to acquire a British passport. She has proceeded to engage in a life of prostitution and disrepute, and, holding a British passport, has made herself immune from deportation, as she would not have been if she had not gone through the ceremony of marriage. That is the evil and the only evil which this Clause is designed to check. It gives the Home Secretary a power of deportation in that kind of case which the Committee would wish him to have.
The question I want the Committee to consider is whether it is necessary, in order to solve that problem, to make this sweeping change in the present law. My suggestion is that in future marriage by a British subject to an alien woman should not automatically confer on her the status of British nationality. It is right, as provided in the Bill, that there should be an


obligation to apply for registration as a British subject, but I would remind the Committee that this Bill, which provides a category of British subjects distinct from British subjects by birth and by nationalisation, namely, British subjects by registration, also confers by Clause 19 very wide powers on the Home Secretary enabling him to deprive British subjects by registration of their British nationality.
If the Committee will consider Clause 19 they will see that in the case of some harlot coming over from Paris for the purpose of leading an immoral life here and obtaining the protection of British nationality by a fictitious and fraudulent marriage she may in future be liable to be deported under Clause 19 of the Bill. The Home Secretary first of all deprives her of British nationality and then deports her. I would invite the Committee to look at the grounds of deprivation in Clause 19 (2) which says:
The Secretary of State may by order deprive any such citizen of his citizenship it he is satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.
If those words are not wide enough no doubt it will be a simple matter to find other appropriate words to cover this particular contingency. I suggest that before we pass this Clause we ought to know how many women are in this category and the extent of the problem we are dealing with. What is the number of women of this undesirable type, whom the Home Secretary will have power to deport and for whom it is now proposed to make this sweeping change in the law of our country?
Secondly, may I draw the attention of the Committee to the consequences which will flow from this change. In future it is to be entirely at the discretion of the Home Secretary, either to grant or withhold British nationality to a foreign lady who previously would have automatically on marriage become a British subject. If British nationality is going to be withheld in any given case, it will become a matter of great reproach on the lady in question. She will be stigmatised as being either undesirable because of some blemish in her moral character, or because she is liable to engage in espionage or some other treasonable activity.
9.45 p.m.
In those circumstances, a great many people before marrying a foreign lady might well want to know in advance whether or not the Home Secretary would grant a certificate of British nationality. Is the Home Secretary going to tell us what principles he would apply? Is it right that this matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary? Are we to know whether there is to be any period of residence qualification? Are the same principles to apply whether the marriage takes place here or abroad? What is to be the position of minor children of a British subject who marries a lady abroad? That lady will not become a British subject. Why should the children be deprived of the benefits of British nationality because of the relatively small problem which is prompting this very wide change in our law? I am not wedded to the precise form of words of my second Amendment, but I hope the Committee will think that this is a matter of sufficient substance to justify the attention of the Committee before we pass this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to the extent that his remarks apply to the case of minor children. I am firmly of the opinion that the powers of the Home Secretary should be strengthened by the wording my hon. Friend suggested. I am unable to imagine what circumstances would arise in which the Home Secretary would find it undesirable to register as a British subject a minor child within the meaning of this Clause.
I came across an unusual case during the war when I was connected with the Army Legal Aid Scheme which indicates that this Clause can be strengthened to very considerable advantage. During the war, an A.T.S. girl of British nationality and a British soldier in the British Forces were serving in Egypt. The A.T.S. girl had an illegitimate child which was subsequently legitimated as a result of the marriage between the A.T.S. girl and the British soldier. The curious position arose that this subsequently legitimated child of these two parents was found to be not of British nationality at all, and when the investigations were pursued it was also discovered that this child was not even of Egyptian nationality. We then


had the curious position of two British parents having a legitimated child which had no nationality at all—it was stateless. When we investigated the matter a little further we found that the child would, eventually, have to take out a naturalisation certificate as soon as it was old enough to appreciate the meaning of an oath of allegiance.
That is the kind of case that does arise and in respect of which the Home Secretary could be instructed by the Statute to have mandatory power to register children in those circumstances as British subjects. To the extent that my hon. Friend's Amendment strengthens the Clause so far as minor children are concerned, I am happy to associate myself with it.

Mr. J. Foster: I do not quite follow the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) as being directed to this Amendment. I do not understand how the Amendment would cure the situation he mentioned. I believe it is cured by some other part of the Bill. It was quite a usual position under the old British Nationality Act that a legitimated child was not a British subject although born of British parents. I do not think the Amendment would affect the circumstances in the slightest.
I wish to ask the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Eric Fletcher) which way his Amendment works. In line 29 he wishes the word "may" altered to "shall." That is quite clear. But I imagine he is taking his two Amendments together. In other words he wishes the Amendment to line 26 to be carried, that the Home Secretary shall register them unless:
in the opinion of the Secretary of State special reasons exist
for not registering them. I imagine that the Home Secretary would apply that test now, and would register them unless special reasons existed. If the hon. Gentleman turns "may," into "shall" he must not put in an escape Clause allowing the Home Secretary to use his discretion.

Mr. E. Fletcher: If the Home Secretary were prepared to accept the first Amendment I should be perfectly happy and would not move the second Amendment.

Mr. Foster: Do I understand that the second Amendment is a sort of pis aller if the first is not carried?

Mr. Fletcher: No. My first preference would be for the first Amendment to be carried and the second to be regarded a, unnecessary. Failing that, I hope the Home Secretary would accept both Amendments because I believe that that would be an improvement.

Mr. Foster: I do not know whether the hon. Member can explain how if both Amendments were carried it would alter the situation in the slightest As I see it the Home Secretary will not register them if he has a special reason. I expect the Home Secretary can deal with that, and if he can find any difference I shall be interested. It seems to me that there is an argument to say that alien women should be registered compulsorily. I do not agree with that. I think the whole object of changing the law is to stop marriages which are solely designed to give people citizenship or British subject-hood in circumstances where they ought not to have it.
One does know that there is traffic in prostitution; one does know there are what are called "£5 marriages." I do not imagine that even the Home Secretary knows the number of people to whom that applies and it is very difficult to find that out. The source of information would be the five Maltese brothers in London. They could tell the Home Secretary with great precision, how many of these marriages have been arranged, because they have had a hand in arranging many of them. But it is a very difficult statistic of the underworld to bring up. It is wrong, I think, that a good number of undesirable enemy women have taken advantage of either the mistaken chivalry or temporary drunkenness of British soldiers in order to acquire British nationality. Once we admit the principle that it is undesirable that alien women should acquire British nationality like that, then I think that this Amendment should be rejected. But I do see that there are arguments both ways.

Mr. Ede: This is a very difficult matter with which to deal. I am quite sure that the whole Committee realises that there are, and have been, a number of marriages in this country with alien women which have been designed to


protect them from the power of the Home Secretary to send them abroad because they are undesirable citizens and are carrying on undesirable practices in this country. The subject became very acute a short time ago when, owing to an alteration in the French law with regard to the control of maisons tolérées, there was a considerable invasion of this country by women who had been carrying on their business in these premises.
I admit that this subject bristles with difficulties, especially those pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that, if the Secretary of State in fact refuses to register one of these women, undoubtedly it will be regarded as a very considerable slur on her—either on her moral character or on the motives which persuaded her to come to this country. She may be suspected of being in some espionage system. I should like to find some way of dealing with this subject which will still leave the Secretary of State with sufficient powers to remove a woman who, having acquired British nationality by registration, then proves to be unworthy.
I do not think the words in Clause 19 (2) are strong enough. I do not think the kind of marriage I have described has been obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact. The woman registers her name, and as far as I know, at no registry office would the registrar be empowered under the existing law to ask her any questions as to the purpose of her marriage. If she is a person with no just cause or impediment against her being married to a British subject, as far as I know the ceremony can proceed without any hindrance or without any fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.
It might be advisable for me to see whether, by the strengthening of the Subsection to deal with this matter I could put the Secretary of State in a position where, if a marriage is proved to be one of convenience merely designed to defeat the law of the country and to take a person outside the ordinary rigours of the law applying to aliens who misconduct themselves in this country, he would then be empowered under the appropriate Clause to deprive the woman

of the nationality she had so acquired. I hope that if I could find some words that would enable me to do that, I should have the support of both sides of the Committee.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), the position of the child which he mentions would be safeguarded by Clause 22 (1) which specifically provides for the case of a person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents.

10.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I put this question to my right hon. Friend? Clause 22 (1) refers merely to legitimated children. What is the position of the illegitimate child born to a British woman overseas or outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State?

Mr. Ede: That was not the case which the hon. Member put. The disadvantage of any layman dealing with a Bill of this kind when a barrister intervenes in the discussion, is that, if he answers one point, a fresh conundrum is then put up to him. Having been in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill for a long time, I have had a very considerable experience of that kind of arrangement. I think that the case which the hon. Member put up is dealt with by the Bill. There can be no doubt about that.
With regard to the case of the illegitimate child of a British woman born abroad which is not subsequently legitimised by the marriage of the parents, I have had a number of such cases since I have been in office, and, so far as I know, in every case where a claim is made and substantiated, a certificate of naturalisation is granted. I will consider whether it would be possible in this Bill to deal further with that point, but I think that, if my hon. Friend looks at Clause 6 (2), he will see that the Secretary of State is there given a discretion to cause any minor to be registered as a British subject in the United Kingdom and Colonies. There were cases where British women serving abroad during the war had illegitimate children, some of British fathers and some of fathers other than British. This Subsection would have enabled the Secretary of State, within his discretion, to deal with the matter.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton also suggested that the registration of minor children should be as automatic as the hon. Member for East Islington asked that the registration of alien wives should be, but there really is a considerable difference on this point. A woman who is a British subject may have a husband who is an alien, their whole married life may be abroad, and they may have as the family language the language of a foreign country, and their children may be to all intents and purposes completely aliens, notwithstanding the fact that they have a British mother. I think the Secretary of State must be left with some discretion, with regard to minor children in such cases, to say that these children have no real claim to be recognised as British subjects.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington will feel that I am seized of the real point behind the Amendment. I do not desire unnecessarily to inflict on any woman the stigma of being regarded as possibly immoral or disloyal, and I will, between now and the Report stage of the Bill, try to find some way of dealing with the point so that the Secretary of State shall not inflict such a stigma on a woman. There are sufficient powers, when one is faced with the kind of difficulty with which I have been faced on several occasions, to enable one to get out of this country, a woman who, merely by contracting a marriage that had no reality at all, was able to claim that she must be kept in this country, to which she was rendering no good service at all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like the Home Secretary, though for rather different reasons, I find myself in rather a difficulty in this matter. I agree entirely with the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), and indeed if he were to push this matter to a Division I should certainly support him in the Lobby. On the other hand, I do not agree with the second Amendment standing in his name, which seems to me unduly to reduce and minimise the effect of his first Amendment. His first Amendment, it seems to me, raises a very great issue of principle.
The Bill, as it stands, seeks to alter what has been the law of this country for some 60 years, to the effect that if a British

subject marries a foreign woman, that foreign woman acquires automatically British citizenship by reason of her marriage. That is an important and valuable privilege belonging to the status and quality of a British citizen, and the fact that the Home Office have found, as they undoubtedly have found, a certain difficulty in a minority of cases where women have used this aspect of the law to obtain British citizenship does not seem to me to be a conclusive reason for altering that principle.
I concede at once that the Home Office have certain difficulties. There are certain women who have used this method to obtain our citizenship and, as a result, the Home Secretary has not been able to deport them, though he would like to do so, and though in principle he would be right in doing so. I concede all that, but it does not seem to me that that is a conclusive argument for this very important alteration in the whole process of our nationality law.
Let us see where this change is leading us. The whole object of this is to give to the Home Secretary the right to say whether a woman whom a British subject marries acquires British citizenship or not. It is for the Home Secretary to say whether an Englishman can confer on his wife British nationality, and the Home Secretary himself has conceded that in cases where he declines so to do he is inevitably imposing a very serious stigma on all women. Once it is known that a woman has been considered unfit for British nationality, then quite obviously every sort of rumour and conjecture will arise about her, and the Home Secretary recognises that fact. He suggests some steps to minimise that, but the fact remains that in any case where he exercises that power he is damning that woman in the eyes of people who know her.
That is a very serious matter, but what is still more serious is that he is seeking to reserve unto himself the right to deport from this country a woman who is married to a British citizen; that is to say, that he is seeking the power to take from a British citizen his wife and send her abroad. That is a tremendous power to seek to use. It would inevitably inflict a very grievous wrong upon the man, and in many cases upon the woman concerned, and I do not think that we have heard anything like enough to justify conferring


upon the Home Secretary so tremendous a power. After all, the number of cases in which some harm has been done to law and order and decency by women acquiring British citizenship in this way is, I suggest, comparatively small. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is in a position to give the figures—I do not suppose he is—but I hazard the suggestion that it is comparatively small.

Dr. Haden Guest: Would the hon. Member say what evidence he has for thinking it is very small? I think it is quite large.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am fortified by the fact that when I suggested it is comparatively small, the Home Secretary nodded to himself, and the Home Secretary is perhaps in a better position to know on this point than either the hon. Member or myself.

Dr. Guest: Jove nodded, too.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not confuse the Home Secretary with Jove, although hon. Members opposite, who always follow the Government Whip, may be more likely to fall into that particular form of confusion. I am suggesting that the Home Secretary and I are right on this point and that the hon. Member is wrong. What the hon. Member must realise is that what is to be done here in order to arm the Home Secretary with this power is to take away from every British citizen—every unmarried British citizen, at any rate—the very considerable right of giving British citizenship with a marriage to him. I think that is an unjustifiable thing, and I do not think it can be allowed to pass without protest from this House of Commons.
If the hon. Member for East Islington were prepared to press his first Amendment to a Division I, for one, would be with him in the Lobby. No case has been made for depriving British citizens of this right. The Home Secretary is seeking to arm himself with a power which is largely unnecessary and wholly embarrassing to him, and I think, on consideration, he will realise that it is better to allow a small number of women of improper character to acquire British citizenship than to make this fundamental alteration in our law.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I hope the Home Secretary will stick to

this Clause. I appreciate the difficulties that exist and how very difficult it may be for my right hon. Friend if, as he himself said, he has to cast stigma upon a foreign woman where in some cases he might have been misinformed and might be in error. I think, however, that we have to look at another side of the question.
All of us, on both sides of this House, and almost everybody in this country, are extremely jealous of the good reputation of British citizenship. We do not want people in this country who can do a great deal of harm by being British citizens, and who have no loyalty at all to Britain or to the things in which we believe. I have no idea what the number of these women is, but I do know a number of cases where serious harm has been done because these women have been married to British men for quite improper purposes. I think it is most important that my right hon. Friend should safeguard the position and I want to ask him to go a stage further to ensure this.
I want to ask that in all cases where the oath of allegiance is taken by men becoming British, it should also be taken by women becoming British; that, in fact, all adults who are registered as British citizens, whether men or women, whether it is done through marriage or not, in all circumstances, should have to take the oath of allegiance or whatever form of ceremony my right hon. Friend decides is right for the men. I think this extra safeguard should be given in the case of women as well as men.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I do not think this Debate should go on any longer—[Interruption]—and I propose to stay on my feet only long enough to explain why I do not think it should go on any longer. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) drew attention to what I think was a very material consideration. I think he had the sympathy of the whole Committee when he drew attention to the very invidious position which could be created in respect of any woman from whom registration was withheld. On that point I think everybody on both sides of the Committee was with the hon. Gentleman. Equally, I think we were all with the Home Secretary when he insisted that he must have some power to deal with the kind of case that can and does arise. He put that case extremely clearly before the


Committee, and, in substance, he added this—and this ought to have ended the Debate—"I will look at the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman; I will look at the difficulty of the strengthening of Clause 19, and I will see if I cannot, between the one and the other, provide the solution to this problem on the Report stage." Nothing could be clearer; nothing more comprehensive; nothing more magnanimous. And the Debate should now end.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I feel that if the Clause is left in its present form, so that the Home Secretary "may" register, he will be in a position to prevent these marriages which we know about. I shall not go into the argument about the arithmetic. I believe the number is great. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) thinks it small. It would be of great value if the Home Secretary could tell the Committee, if not now, then on some other occasion, what the number of these marriages is estimated to be.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think the hon. Gentleman by inadvertence slipped up. He said the power is given to the Home Secretary to prevent the marriages. No such power is given. The power is given to prevent the marriages conferring citizenship.

Dr. Guest: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is the important point. It is a very important point, indeed. I know the Home Secretary so well that I am sure he will exercise the power with the greatest possible consideration. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that a number of very blatant cases indeed have occurred in which prostitutes have come in from Europe, and have married men here simply in order to be able to carry on their professional prostitution—and in order, too, that the men who have married them may live on the earnings of those prostitutes—a very despicable and beastly trade.
The question also arises whether we could not have these cases taking place in connection with the drug traffic. I am speaking purely as a layman, not as a lawyer; but as a layman who is a doctor; and a doctor very often has channels of information which may be

denied to hon. Members of the Committee. I can assure the Committee that I have been appalled at the possibilities of this traffic, through the bringing of such women over here, and of their being married here, and then, as it were, let loose on society here.
I do think that power to get these women out, should be left in the hands of the Home Secretary. I am sure he will use this power only in the cases that are quite blatant. I also think that Clause 19 should be strengthened, so that if by inadvertence and his kindness of heart, he does allow undesirable characters to slip through, he yet retains power to take further proceedings, and to get rid of people whom we do not desire to have as our co-citizens, and of whom it would be a very good thing to rid this country.

Mr. E. Fletcher: My object in moving the Amendment has been achieved, and I certainly do not intend to press it. I am more than satisfied with the observations that have fallen from the Home Secretary. He has conceded the principle I asked him to concede, and has said that in the ordinary case, the law ought to stand as it is at present, and that on application a foreign lady married to a British citizen should be admitted to registration. He has recognised in principle that the right way to deal with the particular evil with which he wishes to deal is to extend his powers under Clause 19, by taking power first to deprive the undesirable women who have for that evil purpose acquired British citizenship, and then to deport them. For these reasons, and in gratitude to the Home Secretary for having accepted the principle of the Amendment, and for his undertaking to deal with the matter on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 30, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Symonds: May I put one question to the Home Secretary? Reference was made to the stigma which attaches to an alien woman should the Home Secretary refuse to register her.


What will be her national status should the Home Secretary refuse to register her? If, for instance, she comes from a country according to the laws of which a woman loses her nationality on marrying a foreigner, as is the case in this country until this Bill becomes an Act, is she then stateless, and, if so, to what country could the Home Secretary deport such a woman should he refuse to register her because she is an undesirable character?

Mr. Ede: Here again, we are being asked these legal conundrums. I am told that the practice of States is less and less to deprive a woman of her nationality in the State of her origin when she marries, if she does not acquire the nationality of her husband. If there were such a case as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) presupposes, the woman would in fact be stateless. My difficulty in deporting her if she became stateless would, I am afraid, be very great indeed. I believe that registration is sufficient in these cases, I do not myself subscribe to the doctrine that everything that happens to a man must of necessity happen to a woman. We are getting dangerously near the position when we shall be told that if a married couple have twins, the man must be expected to suckle one of them. I think that registration is sufficient in these cases, and I hope that the Committee will agree to accept the Clause as it is drafted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Effect of registration as a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Naturalisation of aliens and British protected persons.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 21, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to specify British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies by Order in Council on incorporation of territory.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 32, leave out "British subjects," and insert "citizens."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendment made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(British subjects before commencement of Act becoming Pritish subjects of United Kingdom and Colonies.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(British subjects whose citizenship has not been ascertained at the commencement of this Act.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 39, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 15.—(Persons who have ceased to be British subjects on loss of British nationality by parent.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 4, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."

In line 9, after "a," insert "citizen or."

In line 17, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."

In line 18, leave out "he shall become."

In line 19, leave out "the said," and insert:
if he becomes a British subject without citizenship.

In line 19, after "twelve," insert "of this Act."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 17.—(Applications for naturalisation pending at the commencement of Act.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 33, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Renunciation.)

Amendment made: In page 10, line 3, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 19.—(Deprivation.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 31, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."

In page 11, line 17, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."

In line 23, leave out from "right," to "inquiry," in line 25, and insert "to an."

In line 28, leave out "so."

In line 28, after "manner," insert "for an inquiry."—[Mr. Ede.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to ask the Home Secretary one question on this Clause: how does it affect the Russian wives at the moment? I think I am right in saying that at present those Russian wives are British subjects. Under Subsection (4):
The Secretary of State may by order deprive any person naturalised in the United Kingdom and Colonies of his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is satisfied that that person has been ordinarily resident in foreign countries for a continuous period of seven years.
I want to be quite clear whether the fact that those wives are at the moment in Russia and prevented from coming here renders this Clause non-applicable to them. If it does not, we should know from the Home Secretary whether or not, in the event of those wives not being got back to their husbands in this country before seven years have elapsed, he proposes to exercise this provision so that it does affect them. I should be grateful if he could clarify the matter.

Mr. Ede: In the first place, I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Member for assuming that I shall be here for another seven years. It is a faith I hold myself; but I have sometimes observed doubts with regard to it on the other side of the Committee. I do not think that this Clause applies to the Russian wives at all. In any event, it would be governed by Subsection (5). I shall have to be satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the person should continue to be a British subject. The provision is not aimed at that kind of case at all. It is aimed at the case of a person who has, in one way or another, gained British nationality, become a British subject, and then resides abroad and there is reason to suspect that not only has all his interest in this country ceased, but he may even be using the fact that he is a British subject to the detriment of this country in the country where he is residing or in countries with which he can get into contact from that country. It is not aimed at dealing with wives who have become separated from their husbands for one reason or another, and I should not regard any Secretary of State as being able to deal with the problem of Russian wives under this Clause by way of depriving those wives of British nationality while they desire to retain it.

10.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: There is one other aspect with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Under Subsection (3, c) it is possible that, if within five years of becoming naturalised, a person has been sentenced in any country to a term of imprisonment of not less than twelve months, the Home Secretary can apply this Clause.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that a woman who marries a British subject becomes a British subject by operation of law and not by naturalisation. This Clause has no application to such a case.

Mr. Foster: I should like to ask a question about this Clause. In Subsection (1) the Home Secretary can deprive of United Kingdom citizenship somebody who has become a United Kingdom citizen by registration under Clause it (6). If that citizenship is removed, will a person who is potentially a citizen of another Commonwealth country under


Clause 12, remain a British subject? I will put it another way. Under Clause 12 somebody is potentially a citizen of another part of the Commonwealth. Until he becomes a citizen of that part, he is a British subject without the citizenship standing of a British subject. As I understand it he can under Clause 11 (6), apply to the Home Secretary for registration and under Clause 19 he can have it cancelled. Does he remain a British subject?

Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20—(Deprivation in the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons deprived elsewhere.)

Amendments made: In page 11 line 34, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page ii, line 45, at the end, to add:
(2) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground on which it is proposed to be made and may refer the case to a committee of inquiry constituted in the manner provided by the last foregoing section.
This Amendment is an effort to cover the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), and I gather it is acceptable to them. When the Bill becomes law, cases of dual citizenship may arise in connection with the deprivation of citizenship. First, an alien naturalised in the United Kingdom or Colonies may go to another Commonwealth country and acquire citizenship of that country. Secondly, an alien naturalised in a Commonwealth country may come here and be registered as a citizen under Clause 5.
If action is initiated in this country against a person in either case in any of the instances set out in Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 19—for example, for disloyalty—the Secretary of State would have to give the person concerned an opportunity of having his case investigated by a committee of inquiry. If, as a result, he were deprived of his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, he would retain the other citizenship which he had acquired and,

except in the case of Ireland being the other country concerned, he would still be a British subject in this country by virtue of that citizenship. It would be for the authorities of the other country to proceed with the deprivation of that citizenship if they thought fit.
The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friends would have made it obligatory to give the person concerned the right to investigation by a committee of inquiry. I suggest that it would be going too far to make the reference to the committee obligatory if asked for. There may have been a full inquiry in the other country, possibly in a court of law, and local evidence may have been called. I think that the provision I have made in this Amendment fully covers the point raised by my hon. Friends, and I hope the Committee will agree to its insertion in the Bill.

Mr. Janner: I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the concession he has made in this regard, and at the same time to ask him whether between now and a later stage of this Bill he might not consider the possibility of changing the word "may" in his Amendment to the word "shall" in respect of the consideration of certain grounds, upon which a person may be deprived of his naturalisation. I quite appreciate the point my right hon. Friend has made in this respect with regard to some difficulties which may arise in relation to a person who has been de-naturalised in another part of the Dominions. At the same time, having introduced a proper concession in Subsection (6) of Clause 19, I would like to point out to him that a similar provision would not be abused, or could not be abused, even if it were obligatory upon the Home Secretary to permit a committee to investigate a case which comes within the purview of Clause 20, because that committee itself could say that in the circumstances which had arisen it was not possible, perhaps, to reopen a question which had been already decided in the Dominions, and it would come to its conclusion accordingly against the applicant.
What is important in considering this matter is that by Subsection (6) of Clause 19, before making an order to take away a person's naturalisation the Secretary of State must give the person against whom the order is proposed to be made notice in writing informing him of the ground


upon which it is proposed to be made. That is also contained in the new Amendment. But if the order is proposed to be made on any of the grounds specified in Subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause, the person affected has the right to make application in the prescribed manner to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry under that Section. Thus by the one Clause, the right hon. Gentleman has gone a step in the right direction, because it is reasonable that a person who is to be deprived of such an important asset as British citizenship should have the right to go before a committee. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do the same under Clause 20, so that a man whom it is proposed to de-naturalise in similar circumstances to those included in Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 19, may be treated in a similar manner. I think that if my right hon. Friend does not grant that right, he is, in a sense, detracting from the right given in Clause 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 22.—(Legitimated children.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 12, leave out "British subject," and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Certificate in case of doubt.)

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I beg to move, in page 12, line 33, after "exists," to insert:
whether on a question of fact or of law.
Under Clause 24, the Secretary of State may,
in such cases as he thinks fit on the application of any person, with respect to whose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies a doubt exists, certify that that person is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies;
I believe that the view has been taken in the past that the certificate should be issued only where the doubt is one of fact. An intricate question of law may,

however, be involved, and it might then be difficult to say whether the appropriate Nationality Act covers the point, and in order to give the Secretary of State the widest possible powers, I have moved this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: There is nothing in the Clause itself which would limit the powers of the Secretary of State in issuing a certificate, but in the past, as the hon. Member has just said, it has been the general, although not the invariable, custom of the Home Office not to deal with questions where the doubt is one of law. But there have been exceptional cases where it has been considered right to resolve a doubt in law by the issue of a doubt certificate. I think it is desirable that the Secretary of State should have that power which has been used only sparingly in the past and which, I imagine, will be used only sparingly in the future. If there is any doubt, however, I think that doubt should be cleared up, and I accordingly recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 34, leave out "British subject" and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Discretion of Secretary of State, Governor, or High Commissioner.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The latter part of Clause 25 involves an exclusion from any consideration by the courts of the action of certain of the officials concerned. I am sure that all hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will agree that the courts ought not to be excluded unless some very good reason can be adduced for so doing, and I ask some occupant of the Treasury Bench to inform the Committee why it has been found necessary to exclude courts of law in this way.

10.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The answer is a very short one. This is a matter of executive discretion in which the Minister, or the High Commissioner, or the Governor, is called upon to discharge


functions with regard to questions of public policy and expediency at his discretion. His Majesty's judges have said a score of times that they are not competent, and do not desire, to adjudicate on matters in which questions of public policy are concerned. The responsibility of the Minister, the Secretary of State, or through the Secretary of State, the Governor or the High Commissioner, is not to the courts but to the House, and in the exercise of an administrative discretion of this kind it would be quite impracticable to give the courts any control. This is consistent with the whole process of legislation in this matter over the last 50 years.

Mr. Foster: I am not sure that is the answer. What the Attorney-General says about what the courts have said is true, but this case goes even further. I should have thought that the expression of the judges in the decided cases about not interfering with the discretion of the executive would stand alone, but does this provision mean that the decision cannot be questioned on any grounds? Let us assume that the Home Secretary had gone off his head. If one could not challenge the decision in the courts, it would seem to me very wrong. The provision is that one cannot challenge the decision on any grounds; what it should be limited to is that it should be challengeable on any ground when no reason has been assigned. Does either the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary agree with that?

Mr. Ede: This is a subject on which, in the administration of the existing law, I have from time to time had correspondence with hon. Members. Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, reads as follows:
The grant of a certificate of naturalisation to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision.
I do not think this Clause goes beyond that provision. On very rare occasions, in the exercise of my duties in the three years in which I have held this office, I have found it necessary on occasion to say, in the public interest, that I will not give the reason for the action which I have taken because, while I myself think

it is in the public good, it would not be for the public good to have that action criticised or debated. While it is a very exceptional power, we are dealing with matters which on occasion very clearly impinge on the public safety, and the executive officer who has to discharge this function must, I think, be trusted to exercise his power. It is true that the Home Secretary may go off his head, but I am quite certain that if he did, a vigilant Opposition would very soon see that he also went out of office.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think what the Home Secretary has said are valid considerations, but the precedent he has quoted does not cover the words "or review," which I think are new, in the latter part of this Clause. It was these words which my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) was questioning. I express the hope that the Home Secretary, before a later stage of the Bill, will consider whether these words "or review," which I think are quite new, and not in the passage he quoted, are necessary, and may not be a little dangerous on the grounds stated by my hon. Friend.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 and 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Orders in Council, regulations and rules.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(h) with the consent of the Treasury, for the imposition and recovery of fees in respect of any application made to the Secretary of State under this Act or in respect of any registration, or the making of any declaration or the grant of any certificate, or the taking of any oath of allegiance, authorised to be made, granted or taken by or under this Act, and in respect of supplying a certified or other copy of any notice, certificate order, declaration or entry, given, granted or made as aforesaid; and for the application of any such fees.
These words, which appear in square brackets in the Bill, were omitted by another place because they would have raised a question of Privilege had they been inserted by them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 31.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 12, after "possession," insert "as aforesaid."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(10) For the purposes of this Act, a per son shall be deemed not to have attained a given age until the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the day of his birth
In English law a person is deemed to attain his majority on the day before his twenty-first birthday, but in Scottish law he attains his majority on his twenty-first birthday. It is important, for the purposes of this Bill, to have a uniform date both in England and Scotland, and we have therfore adopted the Scottish method of reckoning the date on which a person attains his majority. May I, as an Englishman, commend this Amendment, to the Committee?

Amendment agreed to

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(Channel Islands and Isle of Man.)

Amendments made: In page 19, line 6, leave out "British subject" and insert "citizen."—[Mr. Ede.]

Consequential Amendment made.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Short title, commencement and repeal.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 14, leave out "subsection (4) of section one and."—[Mr. Ede.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.)

(1) Any citizen of Eire who immediately before the commencement of this Act was also a British subject shall not by reason of anything contained in section one of this Act be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject if at any time he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on all or any of the following grounds that is to say,—

(a) that he is or has been in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom;
(b) that he is the holder of a British passport issued by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or the government of any colony, protectorate, United Kingdom

mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory;
(c) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any colony or protectorate or any such territory as aforesaid.

(2) A claim under the foregoing subsection may be made on behalf of a child who has not attained the age of sixteen years by any person who satisfies the Secretary of State that he is a parent or guardian of the child.

(3) If by any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act provision corresponding to the foregoing provisions of this section is made for enabling citizens of Eire to claim to remain British subjects, any person who by virtue of that enactment is a British subject shall be deemed also to be a British subject by virtue of this section.—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We had a discussion on this Clause on an earlier Amendment, when I think all the points raised in it were covered, and a Division took place. The Clause continues certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.

Mr. Foster: I think that there was one point which was not made. I do not think that anyone drew attention to the fact that an Eire citizen who applied to be a British subject would not be a British subject by virtue of citizenship, but would be in an anomalous class like British subjects without citizenship, because Eire citizenship would not be citizenship of the British Empire.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is quite right; for this transitional class of case that would be the position. The hon. Member will appreciate that if it were otherwise, if the person were given citizenship of the United Kingdom or Colonies, he would be able to transmit the British status, and it was intended to avoid that possibility.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Naturalisation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Peake: There is one point upon this First Schedule on which the Committee ought to have some explanation. It lays down for aliens what hitherto has been the normal conditions for naturalisa-


tion. In regard to British protected persons, however, the period of residence required is reduced from five years to one year, and paragraph 3 of the Schedule states:
The qualifications for naturalisation of a British protected person who applies therefor are:—

(a) that he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and has been so resident throughout the period of twelve months, or such shorter period as the Secretary of State may in the special circumstances of any case accept, immediately preceding his application; or
(b) that he is in Clown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, and"

If we turn to paragraph 4, we read:
The foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall, in their application to any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, have effect as if"—
and I quote from sub-paragraph (b)—
for the reference in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 residence in the United Kingdom there were substituted a reference to residence in that colony, protectorate or territory.
It follows, therefore, that any British protected person will now be able to apply for naturalisation here without any residence in this country at all, because, although paragraph 3 lays down a period of 12 months' residence in the United Kingdom, paragraph 4 tells us that residence in a Protectorate shall count as residence in the United Kingdom. It would, therefore, appear that within 12 months of the passage of this Bill all of the teeming millions of British protected persons throughout the Colonies, the Dominions and the Protectorates will be able to apply for naturalisation.
That appears to be the intention of the Schedule as it is drawn, and the Committee is entitled to have some explanation of this enormous change in our naturalisation law. Hitherto the British protected person has had to come here like other people and to have five years' residence, of which one year must immediately precede the application for naturalisation. In future, it appears that, without moving their residence in any way, they will be able to make application for naturalisation from the Protectorate where they are resident at the time. This is such a large and startling change in our naturalisation law that we ought to have a word of explanation from the Government Front Bench about it.

The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to this point, which is one of a little complication. We will look at this with great care, and if the matter is as he has suggested, we will deal with it on the Report stage.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(British subjects without citizenship under section twelve of this Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Foster: I want to ask the Attorney-General one question on this Schedule. This Schedule provides that where a British subject has citizenship
a child born to him … shall, … become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, … if and when the father becomes, or would but for his death have become, such a citizen;
I am not quite certain what will happen to the child before the Dominion to which the father belongs passes the requisite citizenship law. In other words, assuming a man is a potential citizen of Australia, what happens to his child during the time that Australia is passing its Citizenship Bill? What I cannot quite make out is whether the child is a British subject. It seems to me that that is not so, because the child is waiting for the Australians to pass the citizenship law. It seems to me that during that time the child is not a British subject, and when Australia passes the citizenship law, the father does not become an Australian citizen, and the child then becomes a United Kingdom citizen.

The Attorney-General: I think the hon. Member is right. The child could be registered, of course, as a British subject, but I think that, apart from registration, his status is in suspense during that period. I will consider the point between now and the Report stage, but probably the provision in regard to registration is sufficient.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Foster: I would like to ask why the repeal of parts of the Act of Settlement and of "An Act for the more effectuall Suppression of Piracy" come into this Schedule. I notice that the extent of the repeal of the Piracy Act is as follows:
In section seven, the words 'naturall borne' and 'or denizens of this Kingdome'.
I hope we are not increasing the class of piracies in order to improve our relations with the Dominions. Then the Act of Settlement is repealed to the following extent:
In section three, the words from 'That after the said limitation shall take effect' to 'in trust for him' so far as they relate to British subjects and citizens of Eire.
Perhaps the Attorney-General would explain what the effect of that is, because the Act of Settlement is a fundamental law of our Constitution, and any repeal of its provisions would interest the Committee even at this late hour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why, in Part II of the Schedule has it been found necessary to repeal 4 & 5 Ann c. 16—
An Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover and the Issue of her Body
in view of the fact that her late Royal Highness has been dead for two and a half centuries and the fact that her issue have occupied the English Throne for most of the period? It does seem a little difficult to understand why in this Bill it should be necessary to repeal that Act.

Mr. Younger: I should like to refer to the question of the Act of Settlement. Under the old law, including the Act of Settlement, a distinction is made between natural-born British citizens and other British subjects. When the newer legislation was passed relating to aliens, that distinction was dropped, but it has been a matter of some doubt whether the old provisions were actually repealed and whether they were completely superseded. That was so much so that in the last war, there was an individual case where there was doubt whether someone who was a British subject, not natural-born but by the method of naturalisation, was entitled to sit in the Privy Council. It is now, we think, important that that doubt should be cleared up and, therefore, in so far as it affects that point, and only in that respect, this repeal is necessary.

Mr. Ede: May I say, with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that the point was raised in 1937, I think by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who drew attention to the fact that this Act had been passed which said that all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover should be British subjects. The progeny of this most excellent lady, who secured the Protestant succession for this country, have been very numerous, and have been spread over many European countries. It has been felt desirable, in view of the fact that certain action has had to be taken in the past dealing with this situation, and that we have been engaged in wars with countries in which some of these descendants have held high office, that this Act should be removed.

TITLE

Amendment made: In line 1, after "nationality," insert:
and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies."—[Mr. Ede.]

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

Orders of the Day — WEST INDIES (ECONOMIC SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: My purpose in initiating this Debate on our Colonies in the West Indies is to focus the Parliamentary spotlight on our oldest tropical Colonies. I believe that in recent times considerable progress has been made in the administration of these Colonies, which has brought us to an important stage in their further development. It can be said that we have now come to the parting of the ways—a parting which will necessitate important decisions being made on the future administration and general political set-up which is to be enjoyed by the peoples in these Colonies.
It was Columbus who first discovered these islands, and he described them as being beautiful with an appearance of serenity. I want to paint a picture, in a very few words, that is completely different from that suggested by the description given by the great discoverer. Sociologically speaking, these islands can be likened to active volcanoes, and it is for that reason that I feel that the House would be profitably occupied for a short time considering the problems which have arisen from the developments in those Caribbean Colonies that are the particular responsibility of this country.
I should say first that, speaking generally, whether the responsible Power be America, France, Holland or even this country, the islands can be described in a very few words indeed. In so far as the mass of the people of the islands is concerned, I think whole areas are to be described as a large poor-house. Economically, we can mention cocoa, sugar, bananas, tourists—and, not least of all, military bases—as constituting the economic factors that largely govern the life of the islanders. We may notice that these commodities are seasonal, so far as the employment of the people is concerned.
Taking it all round, the economy of the islands might be described as a satellite economy. It is dependent primarily on trading relationships, particularly in food and other essential materials, and on the importing of these very important commodities. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, speaking generally, the economy of the Caribbean Islands constitutes a satellite economy. I think that it would be also true to say that, irrespective of the particular Power responsible for any particular Colony in those islands, the treasuries of the homelands are being completely and overwhelmingly drawn upon to sustain the life of the various island groups. Those islands, no matter whether they belong to the Americans, the Dutch, the French, or to ourselves, are becoming an increasing financial burden on the old countries responsible for them. I would suggest that this increasing financial dependency—with the one exception of Trinidad, where a suitable taxation of oil leases brings in extra revenue—on the mother countries is a source of considerable danger to the various peoples of the islands.
The British Colonies in the Caribbean have been our responsibility for some hundreds of years. It might be said that our present-day responsibility arises particularly from the traditional economic policy that has been followed in the various islands. Our present extra responsibility is definitely traceable to the traditional policy of the planter economy that has been so long in vogue in the various islands for which we are responsible. The greed that inspired the importation of negro slaves and the indenturing of Indian labourers has reduced those Colonies, generally speaking, to a bankrupt state. Absentee planters or owners of plantations have been to some extent replaced by absentee shareholders today, but it can be said, without the slightest hesitation, that the unchecked development of private enterprise over the years, has left us with some terrific problems to face in the British Colonies in the Caribbean Sea.
I suggest that this fatal economic tradition cannot be cured by the creation of a "kulak" type of smallholder or peasant. In view of the massive populations that have grown up in the islands, production today and tomorrow must continue to grow substantially and that cannot be achieved by a smallholder economy. I suggest respectfully to the Minister that he looks at that question very carefully. If he can make a statement on it, I should be very much obliged for some guidance in that direction. There is a feeling abroad that it is the Government's intention to endeavour to foster a smallholding economy to replace the traditional planter economy that has failed so badly over the years. I was very much heartened by the statement of the Colonial Secretary last week in the Colonial Debate, when he said that
We are in these territories to guide them as quickly as circumstances permit to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth, in conditions that will ensure to the peoples fair standards of living and freedom from oppression from any quarter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th July, 1948; Vol. 453; c. 596.]
Personally, I do not think he can repeat that too often. But I would like to ask him a question on that statement and on the statement made later in that Debate by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), who said that responsible self-government carries with it the right to leave the Commonwealth and that unless we find a better formula


than that, the Empire will disappear bit by bit. I would very much like to hear some comment on that statement from the Under-Secretary of State. I think it is important that the Minister should dispel that fearful conception of the Empire and the benefits of membership, which may become widely felt on reading the contribution of the hon. Member for Hornsey. I think the Minister's words definitely forbid the idea of "slinging"—I think that is the right word to explain it—self-government to the Colonies without any consideration for the mass of the people. This "slinging" of self-government might be a way to avoid some of the terrific responsibilities that have grown up in and around these Colonies. I am sure however that really responsible people in the Colonies do not want independence until it is a feasible alternative. Though certain responsible statesmen, speaking about the West Indies, have said that we must grant the peoples of the West Indies autonomy even if it means that they must have a very bad government, I feel that such a policy as that would be wrong and would be an avoidance of our rightful responsibilities.
I want to refer next to the question of the phenomenal increase in population in that part of the world. I feel that the excessive population increase in the British Colonies and in the other islands in the Carribean can be explained. In order to avoid some of the dire results of this indiscriminate increase, we must explain the reason for it. I would venture an explanation, because if we do not do something to meet the question of the super-saturation of the Colonies from the population angle, then, no matter what else we do, poverty must be the lot of the peoples of the West Indies. I am fully aware of the fact that the population has doubled itself in 30 or 40 years, and that the illegitimacy rate is from 60 to go per cent. But these difficulties, I am sure, can be met and overcome by the definite arrangement, and deliberate creation, of a set of economic conditions which will make possible economic justice for the islanders generally. Apart from the development of economic opportunity for the masses, I think we should speed up in every possible way the development of educational facilities, which are so necessary if this question of

super-saturation of population is to be overcome. It is only by this means that we can breed a sense of responsibility, and encourage a desire for a better standard of life, among the people. Most nations, at different times, have had to learn that lesson.
I now turn to another matter which I think ought to receive the attention of the Colonial Secretary. That is the question of the recent "Windrush" landings. The steamship "Windrush" brought to this country, I think, about 470 immigrants from the British Colonies in the Carribean. I think that Jamaica was the source of these people. It seemed to me that these immigrants were indiscriminately chosen. I think there were about 470 males altogether, all of them indiscriminately chosen, and requiring, when they arrived in this country, housing and suitable work. If we face this question of population carelessly, and permit such indiscriminate immigration into these Islands, we shall be creating a source of embarrassment for ourselves, and causing a considerable amount of suffering to the immigrants themselves.
Another angle of the matter is that if housing has to be found for these people, we shall be very hard put to provide such accommodation without seriously inconveniencing the mobility of any particular section of our own community which happens to be suffering from underemployment. I could quote examples of present temporary under-employment in the large cities—particularly Liverpool—and I am sure that housing is one of the chief factors in that set of circumstances. I am also quite sure that if immigration of such a character is permitted in future, it will definitely be a source of pain to the immigrants and a source of embarrassment to the people of this country. There is not only the question of housing and the finding of jobs for indiscriminately chosen folk; there is also the divergence in social standards. This particular difficulty has already been showing its face, or its head, in some of our local newspaper reports. This divergence in social standards does really create difficulties. I have been reading the Nottingham Press today, and there are two reports of the difficulties which have been created already by these indiscriminately chosen immigrants. I trust that in future the Colonial Secre-


tary will keep his eye on that particular matter.
Another matter I should like to mention is the question of the progress in the constitutional development of the West Indies. It is safe to say, I think, that comparing the Colonies of the West Indies with the independent republics of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and even the black republic of Liberia in West Africa, so far as economic liberty is concerned, the peoples living in these Colonies enjoy greater economic freedom and political liberty than anything established in those independent republics. That is a matter which should be borne very much in mind in our future treatment of these British Colonies. There has grown up in the Colonies and in these other countries I have mentioned a colour plutocracy which would treat the mass of the people with more harshness and injustice than anything we are experiencing in our spheres of jurisdiction.
This is my final point: we have visiting this country at the moment, Mr. Bustamente, or Mr. Clarke. He is here, we are told by the newspaper reporters, to try to speed up the granting of home rule to Jamaica. I suggest that the position in Jamaica makes it quite clear that, if the application made by Mr. Bustamente for home rule for Jamaica as quickly as possible were granted, we should be granting Mr. Bustamente full power in that country. That seems to me to be the position. He is seeking home rule so that he can wield full power in Jamaica. My years of experience in the trade union movement and in the Labour Party make me say without fear or favour that I cannot accept that the organisation of the trade unions and the Jamaican Labour Party is sufficiently democratic and free to enable them to be placed in the category of a Labour Party or Socialist movement as we in this country understand it.
Finally, I should like to have some information about medical officers in the Colonies, and also whether trade unionism is barred in the Bahamas. I feel that we shall have served a useful purpose in this Debate to-night if we can, in the short time left to the Under-Secretary, have some explanation of what the Colonial Secretary hopes he will be able to do to settle the widespread poverty and discontent in these Colonies. They are

lands which, in the past, have been beautifully endowed by nature but evilly wrought by man's efforts.

11.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) has certainly given me very many points to answer in the seven minutes left at my disposal. First, I would like to take him up on one point; and that is his suggestion that we, at the Colonial Office, regard the West Indies as "a vast poor-house." We regard the West Indies as a very beautiful and romantic part of the world where there are very great opportunities if the necessary steps are taken, and the people co-operate with the authorities in the various courses of action which I hope to be able to suggest. It is well to remember, when thinking of the West Indies, that they consist of territories widely scattered and very different in size and nature. There are five groups of islands, themselves differing in extent, and two mainland territories, British Guiana and British Honduras. British Guiana is roughly the size of Great Britain and British Honduras about the size of Wales. We in the Colonial Office believe that the solution of the problem of the West Indies can only be found by planning the area as a whole, and not by trying to deal with it in little bits. My right hon. Friend has, with the consent of the various Governments, appointed Sir Hubert Rance as chairman of a committee which has the task of co-ordinating certain activities in that area. There is an economic adviser to Sir Hubert Rance who can look at the problems of the various Governments as a whole.
The problems are, first, the tremendous annual increase in population. It has been computed to be as much as 2 per cent. per annum. Formerly some of this population was drawn off to Panama, Cuba, and the United States, but now that migration has largely stopped the number of unemployed in the whole area is somewhere about 70,000, and, of course, there is a large amount of under-employment as well. In this area, generally speaking, there is a dependence on a few primary products and there is no planned economy. Our policy is to reduce this unemployment and under-employment and to diversify the economy, by develop-


ing new and existing industries and improving methods of cultivation.
In agriculture much has been done to accomplish these ends. Not only in smallholders' but also in plantation crops we are making great progress; there is development going on in plantations, estates and smallholdings as well. The output of sugar from Jamaica over the last 15 years has increased from 50,000 tons to 200,000 tons a year. In the citrus fruit industry we have assisted with a plan to produce orange juice for sale. The production of cigars which recently was practically nothing amounted to 14 million last year. A considerable attempt has been made to rehabilitate the banana plantations which were badly hit by hurricane and blight. The authorities have tried to evolve a new type of banana which is proof against the Panama disease, I think with some success. Rum is coming into the market in this country once more, due partly to the fact that we cannot get whisky from Scotland. Rum was well-known to our ancestors, and it is becoming well-known to us now. In South Sea Island cotton and other products great strides have been made during the last few years.
The tourist trade is a big factor in the West Indies and the Colonial Development Corporation is considering this matter very seriously. There has been a survey of the industrial possibilities of the West Indies carried out by the Caribbean Commission, and we hope that new industries will be set up. We are also developing new resources in both British Guiana and British Honduras. In British Guiana we are hoping to develop forestry and the growing of bananas for export, and by opening up communications with the interior we hope to assist the expansion of cattle ranching. In British Honduras it is anticipated that we shall be able to develop the sugar industry, the cocoa industry and the manila hemp industry. It is important that there should

exist the possibility that these industries can be established, in the relatively thinly populated mainland territories. Because the areas are comparatively large and the populations comparatively small—only 375,000 in British Guiana and 60,000 in British Honduras—there does seem to be a possibility that we shall in time be able to offer employment to people from the over-populated islands, and settle them in British Guiana and British Honduras.
At the back of all this development especially of the primary products—agricultural products—is the fact that the producers insist upon having marketing assurances. They want long-term contracts with the Ministry of Food or with some other buying organisation in this country or elsewhere. They do not want to put a lot of time and money into their products and then be left high and dry. Therefore, bulk buying, we think, is of the greatest possible benefit and is in fact essential, provided there are yearly price negotiations. Already suitable arrangements have been made concerning many commodities. Sugar and bananas, for example, are two of several commodities for which we have either already negotiated on a bulk-purchase basis or will do so in the future. Therefore, I would say once more that I do not agree with the remark of my hon. Friend about a vast poor-house. There is every cause for optimism in the West Indies, providing we have proper plans, resolution and imagination in their execution, and if we have also the goodwill of the people of the territory. By these means we hope to bring happiness and prosperity to the West Indies.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.